The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr STONE (Murray) (09:01): The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 is a non-controversial bill. It provides for the Anti-Dumping Commission to be transferred from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to be administered instead within the Department of Industry under Minister Ian MacFarlane. This is where it more obviously belongs.
What is dumping? It occurs when an exporter sells goods to Australia at a price below the so-called normal value of the goods. The normal value will usually be the domestic price of the goods in the country of origin. The margin of dumping is usually the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price of the goods. The Australian industry or business which brings an allegation of dumping forward for investigation must demonstrate that there is dumping or subsidisation and that the industry has suffered material injury as a result. Remedial action may then be taken where dumping and/or subsidisation causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian industry or business. The Australian industry usually needs to show a real reduction in selling price, profit or market share. If there are reasonable grounds for an antidumping action, duties can be imposed on the incoming dumped or subsidised products equivalent to an amount that reflects the subsidy or the difference between the normal price in the home market and the price it is sold at in Australia.
The normal value of the goods is something that has to be calculated. The problem is that it is very difficult for an Australian company to go to a managed economy—like that of China, for example—and work out what the price of the goods in that domestic market actually is. This is especially the case if an identical product—a 150-gram plastic container of preserved peaches, say—is not to be found. It is also difficult for the industry to nail what level of subsidy might be embedded in, say, a European Union marketplace or, again, in a managed economy like that of China. Perhaps that accounts for why there has been an extraordinary dropping off over the last 10 years in the number of businesses or industry sectors bringing antidumping actions.
This is a problem for Australian manufacturing, given that we are already in a difficult situation with the very high dollar. We have watched much of our food manufacturing industry leave the country. We only have one fruit manufacturer still standing—the SPCA preserved fruit and vegetable company in Shepparton. SPCA very recently brought an antidumping action against imported Italian canned tomatoes. One of the things about a dumping situation is that the material injury accumulates day after day, so the longer it takes to get antidumping duties—or countervailing measures, if it is a case of subsidisation—put in place, the more damage is done to that home industry.
The request for an antidumping investigation went forward from SPCA in April this year. The matter has still not been resolved in relation to preserved peaches imported from South Africa, but there has been a preliminary finding in relation to the Italian canned tomatoes and a provisional antidumping measure has been imposed. What the new Anti-Dumping Commissioner found was that Italian tomatoes were being imported through a dozen or more separate firms and that antidumping duties of between six per cent and nine per cent should be imposed.
You can imagine that a lot of our supermarkets are quite saddened that they will no longer have the dirt-cheap dumped product to put in their home brands. Not only have they been able to offer product, in the case of tinned tomatoes, at about half the price of the much better tasting and much safer Australian product but, even if they have chosen not to put the dumped product on their shelves, they have been able to say to a company like SPC Ardmona, 'We can bring this product in from Italy for 40c a can and you are telling us that you want to sell yours for 90c or $1.10 a can to cover your costs of production?' So the dumped product is having a dampening effect on the price the Australian producer can obtain, as well as often filling up the shelves of Coles, Woolworths, ALDI, IGA and so on. It is very sad that we now even have a very large label on these cans of imported Italian tomatoes saying 'Australian organic certified'. Clearly this is a ruse to bamboozle the shopper into thinking that if the big sign on the side of the can says 'Australian organic certified' perhaps the origin of those tomatoes is some glorious open paddock in Shepparton growing world-best tomatoes.
There is an extraordinary set of statistics demonstrating how we have pursued antidumping actions in Australia over the last 10 years. I have mentioned that it is extraordinarily costly and takes a lot of time for an industry to bring an antidumping action given that the industry has to go out there into the marketplace and find the data from some factory in Yunnan or some other part of outback China or perhaps in South Africa. They have to get data which stands up to objective and independent scrutiny. Of course the antidumping officials, who were before in Customs and who now will be in the Department of Industry, assist with that process but it is extremely difficult and it takes a lot of time to bring an action. Companies like SPCA talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars involved. So we should not be surprised that in the 10 years up to 2008-09 Customs—then the auspicing body but under this bill it will be Industry—initiated about 12 new antidumping actions each year. By contrast, the number of cases investigated in the 1990s was about 40 a year. The amount of new WTO sanctioned antidumping measures imposed has, in parallel, dramatically fallen, from around 14 cases each year imposed in the 1990s to only about five cases each year imposed in the last 10 years. So, about half of all cases brought to the antidumping investigator succeeded in the last 10 years and about one third succeeded in the previous decade.
You might wonder whether Australian businesses have simply given up because they have felt they could survive despite the dumped product. No; companies like SPC Ardmona, with dumped product making it very difficult for them to survive, simply do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue a case. They also know that by the time they get an outcome it may be too late. SPC Ardmona took to the Anti-Dumping Commission in April this year the allegation that peaches from South Africa were being dumped, and there still is not an outcome. That is appalling. We still have peaches coming in from South Africa. You might say that at least Coles, Woolworths and ALDI have said they will no longer put imported preserved fruit into their no-name brands—hallelujah for that—and they are responding to the Australian public's demand that Australian product only be put into their cheaper brands. The trouble is, the price pressure is still there. Coles and Woolworths are still saying to the various Australian food manufacturers that they are only going to pay them such and such an amount and that they want that product on their shelves at a particular price because they can get an import equivalent product from South Africa or Chile or Italy or China for half what Australian companies are offering their product at. I understand Coles, Woolworths and ALDI are eventually only to put Australian origin product in their no-name brands, but they are still expecting the prices paid for Australian product to be at or below the cost of production. Clearly this is not a sustainable market strategy for the long-term survival of the food manufacturing industry in Australia. I am hoping that our new voluntary code of conduct for supermarkets will do something about that unconscionable use of market power and lessen the pressure put on prices for our Australian product.
It is not just food about which dumping allegations are made. Measures have been taken against polyvinylchloride, or PVC, homopolymer resins from Japan and the USA, and these antidumping measures have been in place since 1992. Brandy from France has had antidumping measures applied to it continuously since 1995. When we do get it right, we do persist with antidumping measures and so—I hate to use the 'P' word but I will—we can protect our Australian brandy industry or our own PVC industry from unconscionable and unfair behaviour like dumping or subsidisation.
Compare the measures put forward by our Anti-Dumping Commission—it has only been in business only since July this year, but there was the Customs regime before that—when addressing antidumping allegations with what happens in New Zealand. Why is it that New Zealand has an extraordinarily different set of outcomes? They have had an antidumping action against preserved fruit from China for more than five years, and they recently reimposed that regime. They do not hesitate to carefully and properly look at an allegation and, if it is found to be upheld by the data brought forward, they will impose an antidumping, WTO-sanctioned, lawful measure against the dumped product coming into their country. They therefore have a whole range of vibrant and sustainable industries, particularly food related industries, while in Australia those industries have a real struggle. I keep thinking about the Girgarre tomato sauce factory owned by Heinz, which shut up shop about 12 months ago. Girgarre is a town of about 300 residents in my electorate and the Heinz tomato sauce factory employed about 90 people. You can imagine the impact on that small country town. Where did Heinz go to? Heinz took their tomato sauce manufacturing to New Zealand, where the government is much more flexible and dexterous when it comes to looking at subsidised or dumped product coming in which could unfairly compete. So the Heinz tomato sauce factory is now in New Zealand—where they do not even grow the varieties of tomatoes which are turned into sauce. How extraordinary!
We have another extraordinary situation in Australia. In New Zealand, if there is not an identical product produced in the home country, say South Africa—if there is not a can of peaches or a plastic container of peaches sold there identical to the one that they are selling in New Zealand; in other words, if it is purpose produced just to sell in New Zealand and is not sold in supermarkets back home in South Africa—they work out surrogate prices to establish whether this product is being dumped in New Zealand according to the costs of production and prices of like product back in South Africa. In Australia we take a weighted average, which is extraordinary. We will take two or three different South African preserved fruit products—maybe a small can, then a larger can and maybe a plastic pack—and we average the dumping or subsidy proportions in each of those prices across those three products. They call that a weighted average, and, obviously, when that averaging is undertaken as a means of working out whether or not a single product is dumped you have a much smaller chance of the dumping being proved. This is a bit of a mystery. Why do we do this in Australia? Why are we using this weighted average, rather than using the system that New Zealand uses, which is absolutely WTO consistent?
With our new Anti-Dumping Commission and our antidumping regime—which both Labor and the coalition know needs strengthening—we have got to look at just how we go about this business, because Australia does not play unfairly. We want a level playing field. Whether a product is car tyres, or steel rims for tyres, or PVC or glass, we do not think it is right that an Australian manufacturer should have to compete against product that is brought in here at a fraction of the price it is sold at back home or that is subsidised. That is not fair. Why aren't we standing up and using the measures that the World Trade Organisation allows? We are a signatory to the World Trade Organisation. Let us start to get with the strength here, rather than be naive or shy or nervous about applying measures that other countries use with a great deal more rigor. They actually—I am using the word again—protect their home industries from unfair practice, and they give them a more level playing field. I commend this bill to the House. It is an important bill. It transfers antidumping from Customs to Industry. I commend the bill. (Time expired)
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (09:17): I am pleased to be able to speak on this antidumping bill because this bill builds on the very good reforms and the very good work that Labor did in government for many years to ensure that Australian industry has a fair go and is not the victim of malicious dumping actions by a whole range of particular producers from countries all over the world. It is not particular to any one nation, and I will probably restrict myself from naming any particular country, although there are some industries and some particular dumping behaviours from a range of countries that have been ongoing for many, many years. We will not be opposing this bill, because this bill, as I said, does build on the reforms that we put in place. And they were significant reforms. It should not just be brushed over as though nothing had been happening in this space. In fact, quite significant things have happened.
It reminds me of the complexity that is involved in this particular area of policy. Some people listening to government members speaking on this might make the assumption or the assessment that it is all very clear and simple; that it is just black and white: something is clearly being dumped, and we should take immediate action on the spot and the dumping will cease. If only it were that easy; if only it were that clear; if only there were no other prices to be paid, then we might have resolved this ongoing issue much earlier, not just for Australian but for the rest of the world.
But the reality is somewhat different. It is a very complex set of actions and determinations and measures to determine that there is a particular dumping behaviour going on, to determine how you then deal with it in a proper, fair manner, and to determine how you then rectify it and ensure that it does not continue to happen. We were not slouches in this area. We actually did a lot of work. I was involved with quite a bit of that work and realised how much we had been left behind in some of those areas under previous governments.
The idea of antidumping is not so much about protection per se. It is about ensuring a playing field that is as fair as possible for our industries, our companies, our business and our workers. Government, opposition, state governments and territory governments ought to all be on the same page on this, because the ultimate goal, and what we all desire in this, is the same outcome: that we grow Australian industry, and that we give Australian businesses, companies and workers a fair go, so that they are not the victims and they are not being injured by the malicious behaviour of certain industries and companies and countries that would want to do us harm by dumping their products on to our markets.
As I said, it is a complex area of policy because initially you might think that everyone would agree that we just need to stop these products coming in, or to get rid of them the moment that we know that they are there. But you will actually find that there are a whole heap of people who want them. This is the controversy of cheap versus dumped, because sometimes it is hard to tell which is which. It is hard to tell a consumer that they cannot have that really, really cheap product because it is being dumped on our markets and it is injuring one of their neighbours who happens to have a small business up the road that is producing a similar product but cannot compete on the basis that the market is being flooded by not a cheap product but a dumped product—and there is a significant difference. In there lies a whole range of complex policy positions that you have to take in order to best provide that consumers—and that includes industry, right through the supply chain—can access good cheap goods and inputs to their businesses and so that consumers, in the end, can get value for money. We see it across a whole heap of industries. It is pretty hard to argue against a consumer who wants to buy a really cheap car. Why should they be forced to pay for a more expensive car?
Using examples of New Zealand and other countries in terms of how they might deal with things I think belies the reality of what happens in individual countries like Australia with a much more complex economy and which are much more complex in terms of some of the industries and some of the things that we produce here as a manufacturing nation. We are not just a nation that digs holes, although predominantly that is what we are. We dig holes and export resources; that is the backbone of our economy, the strength of our economy. But it is much more complex than that as well.
We have the potential to be the food bowl of the world, not just of Asia but of the world. We have the opportunity to take agribusiness and make that a key underpinning economic piece of infrastructure for Australia. But there is a lot of work to be done in that area. It is not the old bizarre thinking of Left and Right in terms of where these things lie, because anyone who spends five minutes to look at these things and the benefits they bring to all of us understands that it really is in all of our best interests to go down these paths.
When Labor were in government, we did not sit on our hands. We did not just look at this and say it was too hard. We said, 'We're going to tackle these very difficult issues and we're going to do something about it because we want a fair, effective, antidumping regime.' We implemented some of the most significant reforms in Australia's antidumping regime in more than a decade. In 2011 we announced the comprehensive WTO-consistent improvements to Australia's antidumping system, as detailed in the Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system policy statement. We also established the International Trade Remedies Forum, the ITRF, to provide advice on antidumping matters, with members from industry, unions and government, and in December 2012 we announced a package of reforms to Australia's antidumping system to deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas.
Our reforms delivered much stronger protection for Australian industry—and there is nothing wrong with using the word 'protection', because it is protection against those who are doing us injury unfairly. It is not a protectionism principle or policy; it is about protecting us, our industries and our economy, from those who are deliberately trying to do us harm.
We did not just make statements and create bodies without investing some money in it as well. These reforms were enshrined in Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement in February this year, which included $27.7 million to ensure that these things would move forward. We streamlined the system. We made it faster, fairer and more timely in order that when somebody is taking some action, when there is some dumping happening in Australia, we can move fast. I know personally where there are significant areas of damage that was done in different industries, from the aluminium extrusion industry to steel to food products. Right across the gamut, there are a whole range of areas where our reforms made significant difference. They made the difference for some industry participants between surviving and not surviving. In one case in particular in the aluminium extrusion industry, they literally made the difference between whether the last manufacturer in Australia would survive or not survive.
We did some significant things not only to protect Australia's best interests but to protect industry, to protect those jobs that existed in those industries and are significant and also to protect the underpinning. There are some industries where, if you lose the capacity within those industries, if you lose the skills and the expertise, you cannot rebuild them, or it is exceptionally difficult to rebuild them after they are gone. So there are some very important reasons why our antidumping reforms ought to continue to be supported and enhanced in this particular way.
We also made it easier for small to medium enterprises to access and use the system. We invested $24.4 million to increase the Customs and Border Protection Service's investigative capability, almost doubling the number of investigations. Australia is an export country. We are a trading nation. We import and export. You would expect that, with all of these activities that take place, we would need to have a stronger Customs and Border Protection capability to make sure that we are not the victims of very unfair practices, dumping practices, from other countries. We strengthened remedies against overseas producers that injure Australian businesses by dumping and those that try to circumvent Australia's antidumping rules.
The central objective of Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement was to build an economy which prospers into the 21st century. We wanted to make sure that the things that we did, particularly in the antidumping area but right across industry, were to protect jobs and grow the economy—grow jobs, protect jobs and make sure that we can continue to do that. Our reforms to Australia's antidumping system were designed to support local business by ensuring, as best as possible, a level playing field.
But I am not kidding myself, and I do not think anybody else in this House should be kidding themselves either, that somehow this will be the panacea to all of our problems in this area, because it will not be. We have to continue to be vigilant. We have to continue to improve policy and update policy on a regular basis and update the laws in this country, because no-one in this area will be standing still. Those who want to dump products onto the Australian market will not be standing still and saying, 'Oh, well, there are the new rules in place; we'll just observe those.' They will not be doing that. They will be flexible and they will be moving, and they will find more innovative ways to get around our laws. We heard some about tomatoes from the previous speaker. We know we have these continual arguments about: what is 'Australian made'? What is dumped versus what is cheap? Those debates will continue to take place.
Labor also made an enormous commitment right across industry, a $1 billion commitment, in fact, through a range of measures to support and create Australian jobs through our Industry and Innovation Statement. This included a series of measures, particularly to allow Australian business to gain access to major domestic projects. We did that through Australian industry participation plans. This is one of the best ways that you can not only support industry but ensure that, in matching up with your antidumping regime, you have industry that can survive—survive the onslaught of dumping and survive the onslaught of cheap imported products which are not illegal, which are not part of dumping, but which cause serious injury to our industries.
The underlying message has to be the same. It was the same when we were in government. It will be the same when we are in opposition, and it will be the same when this government has gone. That message is that to build a really strong Australian economy, with a small population of just 23 million people, with a large geographic mass, we need to build our industries. We need to be competitive. We need to be productive. And we need to ensure that all the things that we do at a Commonwealth level, at a federal government level, support that. Whether it is support for Australian industry through investment, whether it is support for innovation programs or clean technology, or whether it is support of our financial services industry and continuing to push in positioning Australia to be a financial services hub for our region, because these are where our strengths lie, I think that work just needs to continue.
Labor in government not only believed in that, spoke about it and created policy in those areas but invested money. We invested a whole range of moneys in this and put in place changes to ensure that Australian businesses, Australian companies, get a fair shot at the work that is created here in Australia. We also provided $350 million as part of the venture capital initiative for a new round of industry innovation funding to attract private investment in high-risk venture capital markets, and we continued to invest in the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program. We also established the Manufacturing Leaders Group to provide advice to government across priority areas. We understood that governments do not know everything or have all the answers. Therefore they have to turn to industry leaders and experts; they have to consult. In government you have to believe that they can contribute something as well. We gave the Manufacturing Leaders Group $5.6 million to progress projects that would help improve productivity across Australia.
We also invested $9.9 million in a clinical-trial reform program to support the pharmaceutical and medical research sectors. In contributing to this anti-dumping bill, I wanted to highlight the importance of the anti-dumping work we did in government. We will not be opposing this bill, because we believe we need to continue to strengthen the work that is being done here. It is work that is never done and it will need to be improved continually. I also wanted to highlight the important help we gave our manufacturing industries to survive. None of us, certainly not industry, should rest on our laurels, because simply having strong anti-dumping measures does not protect us. If you do not compete on price or quality or innovation and if you do not become more productive, you will be left behind. There is no question about that. The keys have never changed. Continual productivity improvement and improvement in quality are our strengths in both domestic and international markets. They are what we have built our economy on and they will continue to be our strength in the future. In conclusion, I note that this government will do some damage, because they are about to cut funding to the clean technology programs. Furthermore, they will not commit to a jobs package and they will cut under the guise of budget savings in a whole range of areas in manufacturing. In these ways they will do damage.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:32): The member for Oxley was going really well; I was in furious agreement with him until the last 10 seconds. He missed by so little, but he made some really good points. I will leave aside his comments on investment in the clean energy sector, which we have to remove because we pledged at the election to remove the carbon tax and associated spending—a commitment we made because it was a job destroying tax and an economy-wide crippler. I think Labor needs to get on board with us and allow us to carry out our mandate. The member for Oxley talked about a fair go for our manufacturing industries, a fair go for our citrus growing industries and our agricultural sector—those last two especially affecting the Riverina, the electorate I represent in New South Wales. He talked about Australia's ability to dig holes and export resources, and I would like to think that he meant things apart from mineral wealth, because our agricultural wealth will hold us in good stead as the mineral sector flatlines, which, unfortunately, it is doing at the moment. Agricultural wealth is going to make this country great again. Food security, food availability and our ability to feed the world will be the greatest moral challenges in the next 50 years and beyond.
The member for Oxley talked about the malicious behaviour of other countries towards Australia, contravening the World Trade Organization treaties and how we need to do whatever we can to protect ourselves from such behaviour. He talked about Australian farmers needing to ensure quality, productivity and innovation. With those things in place price should come, though that is not necessarily so, because Australian farmers are price takers not price makers. Therein lies the big problem. Dumping is the act of charging a lower price for like goods in an international market than is charged for the same good in a domestic market for consumption in the exporter's home market of the exporter. It is often referred to as selling at less than normal value on the same level of trade in the general course of business. Under World Trade Organization agreements, dumping is condemned by governments that are party to those WTO agreements, but those agreements do not always bind growers and manufacturers who want to get rid off excess product and even stored product. Such activity leads to countries like Australia being hurt.
I listened very carefully to the member for Oxley say this legislation will not necessarily be the panacea to fix this worldwide problem. He is right, because it is sometimes very difficult to stop importers dumping their goods in Australia. You have to prove that they are sending in the goods at a cheaper price than it cost to produce them and to prove the imports are killing domestic producers. Australia plays by the rules, but, unfortunately, other countries do not. Manufacturers and growers in other countries do not pay by the rules. We need to protect our domestic markets and our farmers and manufacturers. Sometimes we spend a lot of time just talking in this place. I do acknowledge the work of the previous government did in this area, and every time these measures came before the House I spoke on them. I am sure you did too, Mr Second Deputy Speaker, because I know how important agriculture and manufacturing are in your electorate. I know the good work that you did on the Murray-Darling Basin inquiry to bring about a better outcome for our farmers. They are the ones who get hit hardest when illegal dumping happens on our shores.
In our August 2013 policy to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing, the coalition said it was determined to bolster Australia's antidumping system. This legislation is doing just that. We want Australian businesses to have access to an effective antidumping system to ensure that they are not unfairly injured or dumped upon by subsidised imports. It is important that this legislation passes, and I am certainly pleased that the Labor opposition is getting on board with us in this respect. I do acknowledge the work that the previous government did in this space.
A genuine level playing field is needed to keep our economy strong and to provide greater certainty for business, but we know that there is never really going to be a genuine level playing field. We hear about it so often and we talk about it so often. In an ideal world it would exist, but in the real world in which we live it just does not happen. That is why we need good policies and good legislation, such as this bill, to ensure that we get as close as possible to a level playing field for our manufacturers, for our farmers.
This bill implements the first step in the government's plan to bolster the antidumping system by permitting the Anti-Dumping Commission to transfer to the Department of Industry. I know the good work that they have been doing in the first months of the coalition's stewardship, and I know the good work that they will do in the future under the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, who is at the table. The object of this bill is to align responsibility for antidumping matters with responsibility for Australian manufacturing, including agricultural growers—citrus growers, certainly those in the Riverina.
The Anti-Dumping Commission will benefit from the considerable knowledge and experience in the Industry portfolio. Industry has made this country great, as the previous member acknowledged, and industry will continue to make this country great. We in this House need to put in place parameters to ensure that we remain competitive, to ensure that we are able to make the necessary investments in research and development and to ensure that we provide as close to a level playing field for our manufacturers and for our growers that we can to enable them to be the best that they can be.
The government will be implementing a range of complementary reforms to give effect to our remaining antidumping election commitments. We, the coalition, mean what we say, and we are doing what we said we would do before the election, and that is important. All too often people get very cynical about governments going into an election campaign saying things, promising others and not delivering. Through this antidumping legislation we are going to carry out what we said we would do prior to the election. I am glad that Labor agrees and is on board. We acknowledge that people on the other side recognise the important work that industry performs. Again, I recognise the important work that Labor did in this space. These reforms will further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the antidumping system and will assist Australian manufacturers and producers who are severely injured by dumped and subsidised imports.
Just about every day I get an email from a Griffith citrus grower by the name of Bart Brighenti. He is a good fellow. When he is not producing wonderful oranges and other citrus products in the marvellous area of Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, he is tapping away on his computer sending emails to senators and members outlining how they can strengthen antidumping laws and what we should be doing to try to get as close as possible to a level playing field. He is on an advisory group I have which talks about agriculture and about what we can do to enhance the situation of the growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.
The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is a very important part of the world. You have been there, Mr Second Deputy Speaker, and I know that you have seen what a great job they do, not just on behalf of the Riverina and the state of New South Wales but indeed on behalf of the nation. The amount of produce that comes out of that area is truly phenomenal. They will continue to be able to produce at such high levels if they get good antidumping legislation and certainly if they get good, sensible water policy.
One of Bart Brighenti's recent emails talked about the ability of farmers to strengthen their businesses. He talked about—I almost hate to bring it up; I hope you do not mind, but I am going to digress—the carbon tax and the costs it imposes on farmers and the food manufacturing industry. It is a crippling cost on the industry, and it is important that it is removed. He talked about the cost impact on electricity prices of subsidising renewable energy and the cost of electricity in running efficient irrigation systems. Because of the higher power costs, many irrigators turned off their electrical systems and put their diesel generators back on to get their irrigation systems flowing. That defeats the whole purpose of putting in place measures to lower greenhouse emissions, but they had to do it because it comes down to cost. They cannot spend more on growing the food than they are going to receive from exporting it. The difference in electricity prices in the country and the city is significant. The cost of power is the same but the infrastructure costs are very different, as Bart Brighenti pointed out.
To keep Australian growers competitive, they need more and better export market access for all commodities. Again, that is where this important legislation comes into play. Bart Brighenti says that bureaucrats need a greater understanding of market access negotiations and they need to be better at it. He says that we need relationships to get trade deals done, but we send a different bureaucrat each time. That is really crippling for Australian industry. There are no key performance indicators for bureaucrats to get good deals done. In farming, if you do not get the job done, if you do not reach your KPIs, you do not make money. If you do not make profit, you do not have the ability to grow food and get it out the door so that you can bring money back in. Bart says that, because their backside is not on the line, there is no incentive for bureaucrats. He is right. These good farmers in Griffith and elsewhere in the Riverina and Australia are the ones with the dirt under their fingernails and the sweat on their brows. They get in and do a great job on behalf of our nation. I do not think they are fully appreciated. I do not think their work is acknowledged highly enough, certainly not in this place.
It really disappoints me when union officials such as Paul Howes talk about the fact that there is no need for ma-and-pa farmers into the future and that we should get on board with America, with their large-scale and wide-scale farming practices. How insulting for the farmers who help grow this nation. How insulting for the farmers who struggle with antidumping and struggle with the lack of effectiveness of antidumping regimes. How insulting for farmers who went out to Griffith and parts of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area 100 years ago when it was nothing more than a desolate plain, nothing more than an arid, barren wasteland. They turned it into a veritable garden of Eden. They turned it into one of the largest food bowls in Australia. How insulting to hear somebody who you could almost call an Australian leader—and certainly a union leader—come out and say that there is no need for ma-and-pa farmers. No wonder they were so irate. No wonder my incoming emails has increased in volume over the past few days, with people asking, 'Why would he make a comment like that? What is going to be said in response?' I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture made such strident remarks against those ridiculous comments, because they were ridiculous. I am sure you would acknowledge that too, Deputy Speaker Mitchell—not that I am trying to put you on the spot.
But this is important. Farmers are important. Certainly ensuring that they get the very best value for the hard work that they contribute and the very highest price for their product is important. That is why I commend this bill to the House. I am pleased that the Labor opposition are getting on board with it. I am glad that we have not got a Green in the House chirping away about how damaging this might be to our international relations or the environment or something else. I am sure that we as the major parties in this place—the Nationals, the Liberals and Labor—are all on board with it because we recognise the important role farmers play. We recognise the important role that manufacturers play. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that Australia is protected from other countries and other players who do not play properly in this space on dumping matters.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (09:47): I rise to provide the summing up of the bill that has been introduced to the House. The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 amends the Custom Act 1901 and other legislation to give effect to the government's commitment to transfer the administration of Australia's antidumping and countervailing systems from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to the Department of Industry. Through this legislation, this government is signalling that it intends to provide the strongest possible platform for Australian manufacturers to boost their competitiveness. Moving the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Department of Industry will benefit Australian manufacturers, as decisions in antidumping matters will be made in a portfolio that recognises the pressures and the demands the industry faces. The industry portfolio is also better placed to consider future reforms and what improvements will provide the greatest benefit to business.
As we have heard from the other speakers, Australia is a great trading nation. This government is committed to ensuring that Australian manufacturers are competitive in global markets and benefit from our commitment to free trade. This includes making sure that Australian industries can lower their costs through access to imports that can be produced more efficiently in other countries. However, this trade must also be fair. We do not accept that it is appropriate for other countries to dump goods into Australia that are unfairly injuring Australian manufacturers. We cannot expect Australian manufacturers to thrive, let alone survive, while they are being injured by goods that are being sold into Australia at unfairly low prices or that are unfairly subsidised by foreign governments.
The World Trade Organization recognises the damage that these actions can have and allows governments to take antidumping action to remedy the injury to their industries. The government will ensure that Australian manufacturers being unfairly injured by dumped or subsidised imports have recourse to the strongest possible remedies permissible under our obligations to the World Trade Organization.
This bill fulfils the first step in the coalition government's plan to improve Australia's antidumping system. We will be implementing a range of further improvements to strengthen the system. We are committed to ensuring that Australian manufacturers and producers who are injured by dumped and subsidised goods have access to the most effective relief possible.
We ask ourselves: what will this bill do? The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 will continue the commission within the department responsible for antidumping matters—currently the Department of Industry. The commission will continue to be responsible for administering the antidumping powers and all other functions associated with the Customs Act 1901. This includes the receipt and screening of applications for antidumping measures and conducting investigations and inquiries. The bill replicates, to the greatest extent possible, the current delegation powers of the commissioner and minister associated with antidumping matters.
The bill also ensures that the commission can disclose information to Customs for relevant purposes, such as ensuring compliance with measures imposed under antidumping legislation. The bill ensures that all applications and submissions made before the commencement in relation to matters yet to be decided will remain valid from that time on. On commencement of this bill, the Minister for Industry will become responsible for any future appointments to the commission's role.
This bill will not just simply move the commission from one administration to another. It is important to look at a snapshot of the manufacturing industry in Australia. This move is important to the manufacturing industry in Australia as Australian manufacturers rely on antidumping legislation, and this government realises the importance of that.
Apart from protecting Australian manufacturing from dumping, this government wants to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing. According to the September 2013 Department of Industry manufacturing update, using the latest statistics from the ABS, the contribution to Australia's gross domestic product of manufacturing as an industry declined from 9.7 per cent to 7.1 per cent between 2002-03 and 2012-13. There were 117,000 fewer people employed in manufacturing in September 2013 compared with September 2003. There were 1,038,500 people employed in manufacturing in September 2003 and only 921,400 in September 2013. In fact, the manufacturing share of total employment went from 11 per cent to eight per cent in that period. Australian manufacturing is in a period of transition away from the more traditional, capital-intensive heavy industries to niche sectors centred on intellectual capital and innovation, sectors with the potential to provide long-term returns to our local communities.
This government's aim is to encourage the development of high-value-added, competitive manufacturing industries to ensure a future manufacturing industry. We want to promote investment and jobs growth and, in particular, reduce red tape to make our industries globally competitive. That is why the coalition government is committed to an effective antidumping system to help keep our economy growing and provide greater certainty for businesses. Those considering antidumping action, including on steel, aluminium, chemical and paper products, processed food, machinery and machinery components, amongst others, will now have access to the extensive knowledge and expertise held within the portfolio in relation to these industries. The strength of the domestic and global economy at any point in time will influence domestic manufacturers' need to access the antidumping system.
We know that Australian manufacturers are currently doing it tough. This is indicated by the sharp increase in investigations undertaken by the commission. Over the period 2011-12 to 2012-13 the total number of investigations undertaken by the commission increased by around 34 per cent. This comes on top of sharp increases in the previous financial years. Where imported products are dumped or subsidised they are not necessarily the most efficiently produced, and where dumped or subsidised imports materially injure our businesses we need to have an antidumping and countervailing provision to level the playing field. Allowing overseas companies to dump goods into Australia at prices below their normal value undermines the strength and competitiveness of Australia's businesses and, therefore, our employment and our economy. Australian manufacturers are under pressure and are seeking improvements to the antidumping system. Australian businesses that are injured by dumped and subsidised imports will benefit from the government's reforms to strengthen Australia's antidumping system.
The establishment, on 1 July this year, of the Anti-Dumping Commission was recognition of the importance and the priority of antidumping functions to Australian industry. The commission will ensure a high level focus on antidumping and countervailing activities into the future. Victoria has the largest manufacturing employment base in the country, which is why the commission has its head office in Melbourne, an important hub for Australian manufacturing industry and business. This will facilitate closer links with industry partners. The commission also retains an office in Canberra.
We have seen already a number of benefits flow to Australian industry from the establishment of the commission, including an enhanced engagement service to provide guidance on dumping and countervailing measures to all parties involved in the antidumping system and help businesses, whether large or small, access the system; a stronger focus on further enhancing the capability and expert skills of the commission's investigators, which will be built upon by access to the expertise within the industry department; an improved electronic public record to promote transparency of the commission's investigative processes and access to critical information by all parties to an investigation; and, finally, dedicated resources to conduct anticircumvention inquiries in cases where the effectiveness of antidumping and countervailing measures are undermined by the non-payment or avoidance of duties.
The commission has been working hard to increase the level of awareness about antidumping systems and is working more closely with Australian businesses to enable them to access the system. As a result, we know that there are many potential cases out there and expect that we will continue to investigate dumping to continue in the short to medium term. Moving responsibility for antidumping matters to the Industry portfolio sends a clear message that we are focused on combating dumping and is part of a broader plan to boost Australia's manufacturing sector. An effective trade remedy system is an integral part of a robust international trading system and is essential to the government's broader plan to boost the competitiveness of Australian businesses. However, we intend to ensure that Australia's antidumping system remains robust, transparent and evidence based and that we continue to comply with our obligations under World Trade Organization agreements.
The coalition government firmly believes that the Industry portfolio is also better placed to consider future reforms which will improve benefits to businesses and industries. They also support the move to the Industry portfolio. This government intends to go further. We have already announced that we will reverse the onus of proof in antidumping investigations, in line with international practices. We will have more rigorous enforcement deadline for submissions in antidumping and countervailing investigations. We will crack down on non-cooperative overseas exporters and we will strengthen the enforcement of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Where legislation is required to implement these reforms this government will introduce it at its earliest opportunity. As a first and important step, moving the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Department of Industry will benefit manufacturers as decisions on antidumping matters will be made in a portfolio that recognises the pressures and demands they face.
I feel confident that the Anti-Dumping Commission is on the right track. I know this because I have met with our commissioner, Dale Seymour. I have met with a number of affected industry groups and businesses, and it appears that everyone is working together towards ensuring an even playing field for Australian manufacturing and businesses selling products to Australia. They know that we, the coalition government, will act in Australia's best interests while working within the confines of the WTO agreements. Again, it is about ensuring there is an even playing field in Australia for business.
In conclusion, before recommending this bill to the House, I thank the honourable members for Makin, Hughes, Throsby, Murray, Oxley and Riverina for their contributions to this debate. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (10:00): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (10:01): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and congratulations on your role in this august place. While this is in no way my first speech after 15 years and six elections, it does feel like a long time since I have given a speech in this place. The misnomer of being called Speaker in the last parliament is that the Speaker actually never gets to speak, so I am feeling a little overwhelmed at being back here and rising in this place.
I want to thank everybody who let me jump the queue to give this speech today. I had hoped that my invisible staff member may be in the building, because I am giving it on his behalf. I am hoping he has arrived and is upstairs glued to the television so that when I get back he can tell me off.
I vividly remember giving my first speech in this place some 15 years ago. I had been beautifully conned by the whip at the time, Leo McLeay—a man known for getting his own way—that I should give my speech the day after I was sworn in. Of course, my speech was not ready by any stretch of the imagination and, not knowing the technology in this building, I lost my speech at 2 am and had to rewrite it. So, all in all, it was a traumatic experience. So I commend everybody who has given their maiden speech and also those who are about to follow me. The sense of pride and honour in being elected to this place, remembering the history of where they have come from, their electorates, why they are here and what they are doing has been overwhelming. I have listened to all of them and I have been thoroughly impressed. I am sure the ones to follow will be just as good.
I rise to speak on the Governor-General's address-in-reply and, sadly, I was not overwhelmed by it. What I was given a sense of was that this is not a government that is looking to reform. It is not a government of revolution; it is not even a government of evolution; it is a government of regression. The government, in its speech given by the Governor-General, indicated what it is going to repeal, what it is going to axe, what it is going to take away—not its vision for the future. Tragically, we have seen that in the short while they have already been in government. What they are here to do is to destruct, not to construct. I think that is tragic for any government of any day. What we should be here for is the betterment of our nation, not taking things away.
I, like many people after the election, received messages from lots of well-wishers and also from lots of people condemning the Labor Party—and, rightfully, I will add, for how we had conducted and lost the election, and all the rest of it. I wrote to them, and I am going to read part of the letter that I wrote on 26 September and sent out to my constituents. It states:
Sadly we are already seeing what depths this Government will stoop too and the public will no longer have a right to know or question. But Labor can only look to itself and its loss in this campaign and take full credit for our failure to sell achievements or engage with the voters. With this in mind I am even more grateful for your kind words as opposed to criticism during this time of uncertainty and soul searching.
Given our list of achievements were many it is more disappointing that the benefits to the community maybe lost…
I go on to cite what I think are some but not all of the great achievements of the Labor government. Since forming government in 2007, we have achieved some wonderful things. One of our proudest achievements has been reforms to the age pension. It is by far the biggest ever single increase to the pension and also very much in the Labor tradition. We had low unemployment, half the levels of Europe, and more than 960,000 jobs were created. We increased the tax-free threshold—again, a huge achievement—to $18,000, which was a huge boost for low-income earners. Labor bullet-proofed the Australian economy and kept it out of recession during the worst economic downturn in three-quarters of a century. Interest rates were low. Families with a $300,000 mortgage were saving $4,000 a year compared to the Howard-Costello years. Our finances were rock-solid with a AAA credit rating. Affordable high-speed broadband was being delivered to Australians and Australian businesses. This is something that we need to bring us into the 21st century; it is something that is now very much in jeopardy. The government's health agreement delivered more doctors, nurses, beds, shorter waiting lists and less waste.
Regardless of what the current Minister for Health said, we did an enormous amount in this space, and one thing was price disclosure, which actually means more medicines will be on the market for more people to benefit from. There was also pricing carbon, cutting pollution, cutting taxes and compensating seniors by increasing pensions and creating clean energy jobs—that was a huge achievement. I think we will regret abolishing something that will leave the next generation worse off than this one. I do not want to be part of a generation that is leaving the next generation worse off, but I will be, because we will not be doing enough to ensure we have a clean environment for the future. We will be the first generation in history to leave the next generation worse off. There are environment protections, marine parks, the Murray-Darling Basin, increasing national parks—just to name a few—and other environment areas. The government also helped our manufacturers to invest in new equipment to improve energy efficiency and reduce pollution through the billion-dollar Clean Technology Investment Program—another thing that has gone.
Labor invested record amounts in schools over the first four years of the Labor government—$65 billion, which is nearly double the coalition's investment, in its last term. We built or rebuilt facilities—almost 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools, including 500 language and science centres; 2,900 covered outdoor learning areas; and 3,100 libraries. This is something we should be proud of. This is an achievement, not a waste, not a school hall rort. Go to any of your primary schools and tell me they are not happy with what they were given under Building the Education Revolution.
There was more than $36 billion worth in projects around the country after more than a decade of neglect and underspending; there was more money in higher education, which is particularly important in my electorate with two major universities; there was the first ever National Disability Insurance Scheme to ensure that people will have choice and control over the level of support they receive. All of these significant achievements, during our short time in government, are something we need to be rightly proud of—not ashamed of. Sadly, most of these will no longer progress.
I want to very much thank the people of Chisholm for granting me the absolute privilege of representing them again. It was a hard-fought battle and I was outspent 10 to 1. I want to commend John Nguyen, the liberal candidate, who worked tirelessly to knock me off—that man worked really hard to get rid of me! He valiantly went out there, he gave up 12 months of his life and, as he said, he was not going to go away knowing he had not given it his best effort—and he did. He is a genuinely nice bloke and I wish him and his wife, Sarah, well—they have just recently married. But the amount of money spent was staggering, and in the end it actually turned people off. I got calls that people—including my mother—were having to no longer turn up to their favourite petrol station because, when they got to the bowser, and there was a video camera running about how bad Anna Burke and Labor were and how great John Nguyen and the Liberal Party were, that was it.
We need to assess how we campaign and spend money, because in the end the amount of money spent was obscene and people were getting to the point of being overrun with it. In my 15 years in parliament, it was only in the last six years of government that I actually got to go and announce anything in my electorate, because it was the only time money was spent in my seat—vital money for vital resources. My seat is quite well-off; it has a high socioeconomic demographic. That is probably why it is quite astounding that I am still here after 15 years! The Liberal Party still see it as their seat—and fair enough, I get that. I do not see it as my seat—I see it as the people of Chisholm, and they gave me the honour to represent them here.
But it was only in the last six years that I got to go and announce anything, and it was amazing what we achieved: $175 million for the New Horizons Centre for Research Excellence at Monash University, a groundbreaking partnership with CSIRO building technology for the future; $4.7 million for the Monash Enterprise Centre to support small businesses and start-up enterprises, another great project that I have been championing for years, and I was absolutely thrilled that that got through; a billion dollars as part of the investment in the Clayton Manufacturing Innovation Precinct at the New Horizons Centre. As we know, most of the manufacturing that goes on in Australia happens in Melbourne, and a lot of it still goes on in my electorate. A lot of it has been lost, but a lot still goes on and this precinct is there to ensure that we actually revitalise the manufacturing sector in Australia.
There was $160 million for the Monash City Council stormwater harvesting, a great local project; $1.5 million to help local commercial buildings go green; $83.3 million for Building the Education Revolution for 92 projects at 46 local schools, all of them magnificent, and they were exceptionally happy with what they got; $200,000 to double the size of Benwerrin Kindergarten; $2.7 million to Box Hill TAFE for a green skills hub; $16 million for the redevelopment of GippsTAFE in Chadstone, another phenomenal institution doing great work in my electorate and for the future of our country; $60,000 for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program at Wattle Park Primary School; $62.7 million for the diagnostic imaging package for Monash Medical Centre. It was an absolutely atrocity under the Howard government that at one of the largest hospitals in this country there was no Medicare funded MRI—we sorted that.
There was $150,000 to expand services at Blackburn South Medical Centre; $750,000 for the Eastern Community Legal Centre; $2.3 million for Wembley Park at Box Hill, to keep up the soccer tradition in my electorate—which is huge: with something like 40 per cent of my electorate having been born overseas, soccer is one of the largest games played in my neck of the woods; $4 million for the Batesford Reserve Youth and Community Hub in Ashwood, another thriving centre now that it has been built; $225,000 for the Princes Highway Reserve Pavilion upgrade to benefit the Oakley District Football and Cricket Club and also the Southern Darts League. The Southern Darts League were the most happy on that day, especially when they made me play darts—I was terrible! There was also $71,700 for senior's broadband kiosks across Chisholm and $241,115 for Home and Community Care packages. All of this was delivered in six years, and these are only small amounts we have gone into. In health, there was $75 million for the Translational Medical Centre that is being constructed now at the Monash Medical Centre—a fantastic initiative, translating research as it happens from the lab to the patient at the bed, and we have already seen outcomes from this.
But we are not going to see some things that were promised during the campaign that were funded under the regional development plan. There are projects that we had worked in consultation with the local community for, and I am very sorry to say that we will not be seeing those go ahead. But I understand that Liberal promises made during the campaign will happen. There were only a couple made within my electorate. Again, we keep talking about putting the Clayton railroad level crossing underground; it needs to be done. Somebody needs to bite the bullet. It will cost billions, I understand that—but at some stage the tragedy that is waiting to happen at that intersection will happen, and it needs to be fixed. Everyone has promised it; nobody has done anything about it. The Liberal Party promised it. I will be fascinated to see if we can actually make this happen. One thing that was promised by the Liberal candidate was $150,000 for the Victorian Sikh Association to build a pavilion at Ashwood Reserve. This was a highly divisive announcement and was unpopular with most of the sporting users of the precinct and the council. The council were not consulted. The local community groups were not consulted, besides the Sikh group, who are a fantastic group who use the reserve—but they were the only ones consulted. This is going to go ahead, even though the majority of the community does not want it. I have had the privilege of being in this place in opposition, government and now back in opposition, but it was only during my time in government that I actually saw things happen on the ground.
None of us get here unaided. None of us get here without support. My family have been unwavering in their support of me over these years. My Maddie and John have had no choice because they were both born after I came into this joint, so their lives have been very much dictated by the rhyme and rhythm of parliament. But I am not going to apologise to them for missing out on their lives, because I am going to endeavour that I do not—and I actually have done so, phenomenally. I have not missed things. My famous effort of going to Maddie's first day at school and missing a leadership challenge will go down in the annals of history. But I am still proud of that one: I was there on her first day of school. Mind you, now that she is 14 and we are arguing about the length of her school dress—things change rapidly!
You do not get here without the support of many people, and my children, my endearing husband, my phenomenal mother and all my many brothers and sisters have assisted me. But there are a field of people to thank: Jim Ryan, Luke Maxfield, Peter Chandler, Gabriella Perdomo, Sofia Stensholt, Sinead Mildenhal, Grace Abeykoon, Ahlam Tariq, Megan Berry, Manfred Xavier, Tom Huxom, Conrad Corry and Jacqui Tharatee, who is back in Thailand—thank you; Robert Chong, Sam Lin, Cameron Petrie, Dan Juleff, Dan Hill and Stefanie Perri; the magnificent Howard and Marie Hodgens, who go on and on and on for me; Halina Strnad; Nick Bantounis, who as always was more than generous; Jan and Cyril Kennedy, Lorie and David Werner, Lucy Chen, Marty Mei, Nancy Yang and my team of Chinese volunteers; Malcolm McDonald, Bastian Simrajh, Chris Barcham, Christine Chapel, Alan Clausen, Mark Coffey, Callum Donnelly, Ray Manning, Luke Gahan, Anne Hyde, Gary Dirks, Helen Clement, David Shulz and Janet Baker; the Australian Institute of Maritime Engineers, who are phenomenal; the National Union of Workers; the Finance Sector Union, my old employers, always there to help; Bob Stensholt and Ros Kelleher; and John and Elisabeth Lenders.
I thank, of course, my inimitable staff, Alistair, Janet, Rick, Matt, David and Liana, whose support has been unwavering over many, many years. But the people I want to thank most today are the staff who are no longer with me, Jason Leibish and Lindy Franklyn. Jason has worked for me for the last 10 years; Lindy, for the last six. Both of them, sadly, have been made redundant as I am no longer Speaker. My office now seems a lot quieter without these people. We are missing them greatly, and I love them dearly. They were the backbone of my team, but that is the stake of politics.
I also want to thank Harry Jenkins very much for his great support over my time as Speaker, and the clerks, particularly Bernard Wright—and it is lovely seeing him here today. We are about to see a changing of the guard when Bernard retires after 42 years in this establishment. That is phenomenal. I also thank Peter Stephens and Rosemary Preston, who were just phenomenal in assisting me in the Speaker's office. People do not realise how much goes on in the Speaker's office. It is not just about surviving question time; there is a lot more to it.
The staff member I want to thank most is Chris Paterson. Chris is an amazing member of this august institution but he will no longer be a member of this august institution very shortly, and I am sad about that. Chris started here back in as a Parliamentary Officer Class 5. He was employed in the committee office and cut his teeth working on the Expenditure Committee. In those days, the committee office was housed in East Block. Chris's talents were soon recognised and he was promoted to a grade 7 in less than a year. Chris had a break from parliamentary service when he worked for the Aboriginal Development Commission from 1985 to 1988. When he returned to the Department of the House of Representatives in 1988, Chris again worked in the committee office as a researcher and inquiry secretary.
Chris was and is a first-rate researcher, analyst and adviser. He was also a very deeply respected manager of staff, and a trusted and respected adviser to members. His leadership was recognised in 1999, when Chris was promoted again. All members who worked with Chris will tell you they liked and respected him. Of course, the former Speaker did refer to him as 'Boof', but I will leave it to them to explain that!
In 1999, Chris was transferred to become the Director of the Parliamentary Relations Office—again, a role he performed phenomenally well. This was a whole new area of work for Chris, but his skills and experience stood him in good stead as he mastered the intricacies of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, and the programming of incoming and outgoing delegations. I first got to know Chris when he was the secretary of my first committee, the economics committee, in this House.
Speaker David Hawker, who had seen Chris in action as a committee secretary, showed great wisdom in asking Chris to become his senior adviser in 2004. He then served Speaker Jenkins and Speaker Slipper, and I also had the privilege of having him on my staff. Chis has thus had the unique experience of working as Senior Adviser to the Speaker under Liberal, Labor and independent Speakers—a phenomenal effort.
Chris's record speaks for itself. He is an amazing individual to work with. He is a mine of information about this place. There is absolutely nothing that goes on in this place that Chris does not know about. We are about to lose one of the greatest servants of this parliament that we have had. I want to pay him the privilege and honour of saying: a very big thankyou, Christopher.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Capricornia, I remind honourable members that this is her maiden speech and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. I have great pleasure in calling the honourable member for Capricornia.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:22): On a winter's day in 1969 people walked into my father's shop and held their breath. They were mesmerised. Their eyes were glued to a fuzzy image. Neil Armstrong was stepping onto the moon. Dad had set up a black and white TV. He wanted to make sure that people who could not afford a television could experience the event of a generation. I learnt a lesson that day. For me it was not just witnessing history; it was witnessing yet another extraordinary gesture of unassuming generosity, generosity for which my father, like many small-business owners in country towns across this great nation, are renowned. I can add to this lessons about community spirit, consideration for others and willingness to stop and listen with an open mind. As I look up to the public gallery I say directly to you, Dad, that I have never forgotten the lessons I learnt from watching you in your shop—lessons which have made me who I am, lessons which have guided me on my journey here today, where I proudly stand with you in the Australian parliament to deliver my first speech. These lessons helped to form my moral beliefs and to shape my political ideals, ideals that remind me of Sir Robert Menzies and his famous speech 'The Forgotten Australians'.
Menzies reflected on the contribution of middle-class Australians. He identified these people as the shopkeepers, farmers, skilled artisans, salary earners, professional men and women, the employers of our communities. He described them as the true backbone of the nation. I add to this list those who contribute to industrial, resource and economic production. These are all my constituents and it is to them that I make this pledge. I pledge to facilitate the 'reawakening of Capricornia' after a decade and a half of political dormancy. I will further explore my pledge shortly.
I was not born into wealth and privilege. My journey from humble beginnings was guided by my parents, Bill and Gloria Martin, small-business owners—two of Menzies' so-called 'forgotten Australians'. For 21 years, they ran Lucky Daniels Casket Agency in William Street, Rockhampton. As a 12-year-old, I stood on a box behind the counter and wrote out casket tickets. Lucky Daniels was a place where characters stopped to yarn and to gossip about events affecting their lives. They discussed the harsh weather, the Beatles, the death of JFK and Bob Menzies, decimal currency, Vietnam, the rise of Abba, the end of Elvis and, of course, the impact that federal political decisions had on their lives.
Running a small business and raising a family is tough. My mother would cook, wash, clean and pack us off to school before heading down to Lucky Daniels to work with dad. In the afternoon, she headed home to prepare dinner and then changed into her nursing uniform to work the night shift at the base hospital. Mum, you instilled in me that characteristic of rolling up your sleeves, getting on with the job and putting others first—a trait I am using now in my journey as federal member for Capricornia. Mum and Dad, you taught me that hard work and good manners can take you to places of which you never dreamed. Today's walk through the great halls of Parliament House, past the golden framed portraits of Menzies and other great Prime Ministers, reminds me of just that.
Today, I am privileged to stand with you, in the nation's 44th parliament, as the 16th member for Capricornia since the electorate was created in 1901. I acknowledge prominent past members, like Frank Forde, the caretaker Prime Minister for eight days following the death of John Curtin, and Liberal-Country MP Charles Davidson, a cane and dairy farmer who fought with distinction in World War I and who served as a lieutenant colonel in World War II. I relate to Charles Davidson because, like me, he won the seat after it was held by a long-term ALP member. I acknowledge other National Party MPs who held this seat—Col Carige and Paul Marek.
I did not win my first campaign but, with a small team, I moved mountains to achieve an 8.4 per cent swing against the sitting member. This year, I won Capricornia with a further 4.45 per cent swing, thanks to the support of constituents seeking change.
I spoke earlier about 'reawakening' the great geographical region of Capricornia. This reawakening starts with encouraging bold vision back into our local communities; giving a voice to constituents who have been crying out for representation; urging resource companies to give preference to local workers where local jobs are being farmed out to fly-in fly-out workers from other cities; cutting red tape to help small business prosper in town and on the land; preparing now to build a strong service sector in our rural and remote towns; and doing our darn best to ensure those services survive when the resource sector goes through periodic downturn.
The reawakening of Capricornia will not be easy. It will take courage. It will take commitment. It will take cooperation and it will take every one of us in every corner of the electorate to be more positive, more focused, more united and more progressive in our way of thinking. I want to help facilitate this through positive, progressive politics. With the right political leadership, Capricornia can prosper further. With the right political representation, industry and individuals in our great region should be able to build wealth and grow their communities in harmony. With the right attitude, competing groups—employees, employers and big organisations—can work together in a spirit of cooperation, rather than being combative.
If we want to reawaken our future potential, we have to consign to the dustbin of history the bitter and divisive attitudes that have failed us for so long, causing so much bitterness, conflict and divide in our big and small towns. The ugly divisiveness and political hatred separating workforce from industry and neighbour from neighbour which has, for far too long, held back Central Queensland must end on all sides. If we fail to do this, we will fail to be a progressive, forward-looking Capricornia. Our region has been wounded by divisive attitudes for far too long. It is dividing our local communities. Small-business owners in our small towns in Capricornia are losing money too—some as much as 30 per cent in four months. As your representative, I will do what I can to achieve a more progressive, united, vibrant Capricornia. I will put aside political differences and willingly work with industry and workers and with local, state and federal counterparts to the best of my ability to re-awaken Capricornia and to help facilitate the brighter future which people from all walks of life deserve.
I recognize that not all of my constituents voted for me. But I pledge this: if you have an issue that you want to put to government, come and talk to me. I will be working tirelessly throughout the electorate. When I am in your town, come and see me. Stop and tell me what your concerns are and what solutions you have thought about.
Australia is a big country and it is my job to remind you of the significant role that Capricornia plays in shaping our nation. Its 91,000-odd square kilometres play host to key international land and sea defence training. Regular military operations involving the United States, Australia, Singapore and other nations inject millions of dollars into local communities.
Our greater economic region is among the biggest contributors to Queensland's multibillion dollar agricultural business. There are $77 billion worth of mining projects either under construction or in the pipeline. We are the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef. And we export education via a 21st century intellectual industry spearheaded by CQUniversity.
We are unique. We are diverse. We are the resourceful heart of Queensland. We have skilled workers. And we are open for business.
If Capricornia was served up in a restaurant, you would enjoy a multibillion dollar meal showcasing our diversity. Your menu might read: 'Crocodile medallions, from one of Queensland's premier croc farms and dusted in local bush tucker spices.' It might then offer: 'Reef and beef, featuring premium Central Queensland tiger prawns fresh from the trawler, and the world's best beef, sourced from Australia's real beef capital.' Beef is a proud and thriving industry that generates nearly $300 million dollars locally in beef meat processing alone. Our cattle industry deserves our full support, rather than the random decision making we have seen from previous governments that has set the industry back. Next on our dinner menu is a course of tropical fruit desserts enhanced with natural cane sugar. We use premium cane harvested from around Sarina and West Mackay—a big player in Queensland's multibillion dollar sugar sector.
As you begin your meal, enjoy our coastal views overlooking the extraordinary islands of the Great Barrier Reef. As the sun sets, check out the mood lighting, powered by the 'hard yakka' from Central Queensland's coalfields. In case the topic surfaces during dinner, you should know that Capricornia's resources sector is the powerhouse of Queensland. It drives the backbone of investment, employment and new regional infrastructure in Central Queensland, building our national wealth and enhancing our global significance.
Inspired dinner conversation should turn to Capricornian innovations in technology, engineering, health research and education that flow from CQUniversity Australia. The university has merged with CQ TAFE to deliver Queensland its first dual sector university, with a $300 million operating budget and 40,000 potential students.
Further dinner conversation of course turns to sport. Capricornia boasts tennis great 'Rocket' Rod Laver and Olympic champions like Kerrie and Anna Meares, Kenrick Tucker, Jamie Dwyer and many more. Key players in our business sector are backing a bid to locate an NRL team in Central Queensland, a heartland for rugby league. After dinner, stay the night at any of the region's islands and tourism resorts, which, by the way, inject $615 million and nearly 6,000 jobs into the Greater Central Queensland economy.
I have spoken briefly about reawakening Capricornia, our significance to the nation and some of the experiences that have shaped my character. Many people have walked beside me on the journey that brings me to this chamber and I want to recognise all of them. Regrettably, time does not permit me to mention each of them by name, but I want to say thank you to everyone who has been part of my journey. You helped me do a better job, you reinforced the values of mateship, you boosted my spirits and you helped me understand what needs to be done to re-awaken Capricornia.
I have already spoken of my parents. Sitting with them today are my beautiful daughters, Jessica Price and Kirstin Daniels. The lessons I have learnt from them are just as valuable in making me a better member or better mother. To Kirsten and Jess and Jessica's wonderful husband, Tim, I say thank you—thank you for the love and support you have given me. To my brothers, Daniel and Robert, their wives, Karen and Katie, and their extended families—I say thank you.
I particularly thank campaign director and friend, Dr Kim Bulwinkel, who drove a successful campaign across the line. Kim: mission accomplished! I acknowledge the assistance of Ken Crooke, Trish Symons, Scott Kilpatrick and Gary Kerr. To Lance Rundle, Ellen Cogill, Adrienne Jackson, John Christie and David Horton, who helped us build the LNP in Capricornia and who contributed their support—I say thank you. I also thank our committed fundraising committee—Dominic, Lance, Ellen and Ken—and all of our financial sponsors and supporters.
I would like to sincerely thank Senator Ian Macdonald for being my mentor, friend and advisor. He encouraged me to stand for election and has stood by me on my journey. To Barnaby Joyce, who was my patron senator before the election—for all of your counsel, I say thank you. I thank Matthew Canavan, Dennis Quick, Brad Henderson and Robyn Mills for their support.
To my good friend and federal colleague, Ken O'Dowd, who taught me so much and who taught me to work with passion—I say thank you. To my state LNP counterparts—like Bruce Young and Ted Malone—I say thank you. I thank the Prime Minister and coalition leadership team for supporting Capricornia. To the wonderful LNP Central Queensland Women's Branch and the state executive—I say thank you.
To valued supporters Neil Fisher, Kylie Jackson, Dan De Zoysa, Mark Hiron, James McGrath, Bridie Luva, Robert Brodie and Sarah-Joy Pierce—I say thank you. And to everyone too numerous to list—I say thank you. To the ordinary people who voted for change, who put their trust in me—I say thank you. To the people who waved placards at the side of highways in the cold mornings and hot afternoons—I say thank you. To those who manned the polling booths, handed out how-to-vote cards, set up Facebook and web sites, did pre-polling and rallied behind the cause—I say thank you. And to those who were scrutineering in the days after the election—I say thank you.
To the people who took time to mingle and talk to me on the side of the road, at mining camps, in the pubs, at the races, walking the streets in our cities like West Mackay and Rockhampton, and in country towns from Collinsville to Clermont, through the Isaac and Whitsunday shires, from Dysart to Moranbah, Nebo to Sarina, Camilla, Clarke Creek and Marlborough, Emu Park to Yeppoon and everywhere in between—I say thank you. I could not have achieved this without you.
So many people in Capricornia contribute so much in so many different ways, and I want to recognise them. I recognise our unique Aboriginal culture and those who preserve and teach the history, heritage, traditions, Dreamtime culture and language of our Indigenous people. I recognise the people who work night shift—in services, emergency services, small business and mines and industry. While we sleep, they keep our economy rolling. I recognise people at the heart of our transport industries, from bus drivers to cabbies and the long-haul freight and livestock truckies that keep us moving and deliver our products. I recognise those who work in the blazing sun—in the farm paddocks, on construction sites and in outdoor jobs.
I recognise the vital contribution of small business owners—Menzies' so-called forgotten Australians—who work day and night keeping their businesses operating. Having worked in banking and in my own small bookkeeping business, I fully appreciate your commitment. I recognise the huge investment by corporations from meat processing to tourism; in mining and resources; and by developers of infrastructure. It is our small business owners and our major corporations who take the fiscal risk to invest in our region, creating jobs and commerce.
I want to also recognise the contribution of people like our police officers, teachers, nurses and others who do not earn the big wages of the resources sector but who go out with their families to live in these areas. They enrich and contribute to our country towns and help others in our communities. It might seem surprising, but I also recognise our regional media—the newspapers, local radio and TV that chronicle our daily history.
I salute our region's vast and diverse multicultural groups—people who come from far-off places; people who introduce us to new and vibrant cultures, festivals and foods and who contribute enormously to the fabric that makes up our local economy. And I recognise all those who contribute to one of the largest single employment groups in our region outside resources—workers and professionals in the health and medical sector.
Let me also acknowledge our unseen heroes in Capricornia, like our bush fire fighters, meals on wheels volunteers, our incredibly resilient State Emergency Service volunteers, sports coaches and umpires, tuckshop ladies, and marine rescue, coast guard and surf lifesaving volunteers. I also acknowledge those involved with St John's, Red Cross, the Salvos, St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare Lifeline, the Country Women's Association, Men's Sheds, the RSL, volunteer caretakers of our local historical sites, Riding for the Disabled, and so many more people who generously provide their time and resources to make our community a better place to live.
I have spoken about the history of my journey and the values that I bring forward from my childhood. I have spoken about the reawakening of Capricornia and encouraging bold vision back into our communities. I have spoken about the need to put aside political hatred and bitterness, dividing our local towns. And I have recognised those who make up the social fabric, community spirit and economic drive of our region.
I want to leave you with perhaps one of the most powerful lessons that will shape my life in politics. It occurred when I was fronting a media doorstop with visiting Senator Brett Mason. Photographers and TV crews were closing around us. A woman suddenly appeared in shot, swinging the carcass of a freshly plucked, headless rooster. Moments earlier, she had thumped the floppy carcass on the counter of town hall, protesting bylaws that banned roosters from the city. She was promptly thrown out. Her unexpected gatecrash into my media scrum called for some skilled diplomacy—diplomacy of which even the foreign minister would be proud. I did what I had promised throughout the campaign to do. I listened, completely. Weeks later, she stopped me in the street to report she had proudly voted for me, for one reason. 'You took the time to listen to me,' she said, 'when nobody else would hear me out.' That is my aim—to listen to the people of our community, to be familiar with every aspect of the electorate. I plan on being there for everyone who wants to see me. I thank the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:43): I congratulate the member for Capricornia on her first speech. Being here is a very special honour. Despite the politics of the place, we should never lose sight of the honour that we collectively have to represent our local communities in the federal parliament. I welcome the member for Capricornia. Mr Deputy Speaker, welcome back and congratulations on your elevation to high office, and may I also extend my regards to your mother.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Thank you—I will pass that on.
Mr HAYES: It is a great honour to speak in the address-in-reply debate. It is a traditional time when new and re-elected members can make wide-ranging speeches. I would like to use this opportunity primarily to thank the people of Fowler who once again have placed their trust in me to represent them in this place. I am truly humbled by the support of the individuals and organisations that make up the great electorate of Fowler, and I reiterate that I regard it as a great privilege to represent them in the federal Parliament of Australia. I came to Fowler in 2010, and, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I previously served in the seat of Werriwa. Being new to an electorate that I was not totally familiar with, I had the opportunity to start from scratch, familiarising myself with the issues and complexities that go with an electorate as diverse as Fowler. As most members in this place are aware, Fowler is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. This electorate is certainly characterised by the colour, the diversity and the vibrancy that this brings to day-to-day life. They are things that I find truly worthwhile, and it is certainly of value to celebrate them.
However, on socioeconomic rankings, Fowler is not a rich electorate. Given the level of disadvantage, there are many challenges to improving the lives of people and families in my electorate. In the lead-up to the previous election, when I first came to Fowler, I made a commitment to represent people diligently and with determination. I also went on to identify a number of issues that I would personally commit to, and I happily committed to be judged on the way I respond to those issues. I would like to recap on those. Together with the local community and, particularly, with the former Labor government, I am proud of what we have been able to achieve. These are matters that we should take some pride in. I would like to canvass the personal commitments I made as an incoming new member into the seat of Fowler.
The first thing I promised was to be as accessible as possible to the local community, to individuals and to organisations, and to actively pursue their interests. I would like to think that the overwhelming support that I received from my community at the last election was a reflection of how I work and how I relate to the local community. The second matter I personally committed to was to bring more employment opportunities to Fowler, particularly for young people. Youth unemployment is problematic across the nation, but in Fowler it is particularly alarming when we are reaching an unemployment rate of about 30-odd per cent in some parts. This is why I sought to bring the job and skills expos to my area. On two occasions now I have held job and skills expos in Liverpool, in the middle of south-west Sydney. Earlier this year we attracted over 5,000 local job seekers. More than 370 people were directly linked to employment on that very day, and many others were able to file applications and gain employment in the weeks following.
Giving a person a job, as we all appreciate in this place, is providing someone with a future. But giving a young person an opportunity is certainly giving them the best start to their adult lives. Providing young people with the education and the skills necessary to gain employment is critical for safeguarding their future. I am very proud of the part that the former Labor government played in investing in education, skills and training. The previous Labor government's commitment to education is certainly well documented. In Fowler, $108 million of federal funding went to 115 projects benefiting 46 schools in my electorate. During my first term as the member for Fowler, the Labor government delivered a new trade training centre at the Bonnyrigg High School, which now delivers quality hospitality qualifications. We also invested $673,000 for the establishment of the new Miller Trade Training Centre at the Miller Technical High School, which will deliver education in engineering. We have also moved ahead with construction of the trade training site at the Liverpool Boys High School.
Previously, the Labor government also laid the important foundations and set approvals in process for further trade training centres across my electorate in Ashcroft High School, Cabramatta High School, Canley Vale High School; a joint centre for the Good Samaritan College, Freeman Catholic College and Mary Mackillop College; and one at James Busby High School as well as Thomas Hassall Anglican College. The Labor government put a lot into investing in the kids, not just into those pursuing academic education but also into those who want to go on to pursue vocational education training. That is something that is of critical importance to the area I represent, which wants to break the culture of unemployment.
It is going to be a question now of whether this new government—the Abbott government—will honour the same commitment to education and technical education. We will fight very hard to maintain the commitment to education because it is a commitment not simply to kids and to families; it is a commitment to this nation's future.
When it comes to education, this week alone speaks volumes. We have seen the debacle of a backflip with pike when it comes to education funding. We have seen the whole concept of Gonski being thrown around the chamber like it is just another colloquial term, without appreciating the underpinning values of what that Gonski review means for kids for the future.
The third issue I wanted to touch upon, which is one I certainly can personally relate to, is the issue of domestic violence occurring in our community. I promised, when I first went to Fowler, that I would continue to raise awareness for the fight against this most appalling blight on our society. In last week's sitting, as you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, I moved a motion in this place drawing further attention to White Ribbon Day, which was on 25 November. It is absolutely inexcusable that, in a modern, thriving society such as ours, we still face the staggering statistic that one in three women will become a victim of violence in their lifetime, and one in five will be a victim of sexual violence. The majority of this violence, regrettably, occurs at home. The other staggering statistic, and one that really should resonate with everybody, is that the reality is that one woman dies each week in this country as a consequence of domestic violence.
This has got to stop. We who occupy positions of community leadership in this country must make it a priority to commit to stop domestic violence. I strongly urge all men, not only in my electorate but across the nation, to take the oath and swear never to commit, never to excuse and never to remain silent when it comes to violence against women.
It is an unfortunate fact that this style of violence is widespread, but it particularly impacts on areas of disadvantage and some of the culturally diverse communities as well. Often there is a lack of understanding of domestic violence as well as a lack of knowledge across some of the communities regarding the legal rights of victims and the ability to report to police and also trust in police to prosecute these issues. These are things that must be addressed within our communities. I think that within our sphere of influence we have a positive role to play in that.
I will also continue to work to support local organisations like the Bonnie Women's Refuge; Sistas for Sistas, a local Aboriginal organisation addressing violence against women in their community; and also our migrant resource centres; together with our police, who make a sterling effort, particularly when it comes to violence. One of the things that I know from our local police is that, in areas such as Green Valley, Liverpool and Cabramatta, more than 50 per cent of the police work in those communities is associated with domestic violence, and the vast majority of that is violence against women. There is certainly a story to be told about that, but anyone in authority, in a position of leadership, should be moving to draw attention to this blight on our society.
When I became the member for Fowler, given my background and probably a little bit of what I have just said, I also committed to work very closely with and support the work of our police, who do such a brave and commendable job in protecting our community. As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had a long track record of working with police, apart from representing many police officers for many, many years prior to coming to this place and also being the son of a New South Wales police officer. I have great respect for the work that they do for the safety of our communities, at times putting their own lives at risk. They make a huge change for the better of our communities. They are brave men and women with a special type of courage who wear the police uniform. They cop a lot of criticism, but I think we should always stop to acknowledge the good work that they do. Fortunately, very few of us will ever experience the dangers that they are prepared to face on a daily basis to protect our communities.
In relation to the issue of community safety and law enforcement, this government has not got off to a great start, particularly when we look at issues of community safety in my own communities of Cabramatta and around Fairfield. I know that the shadow minister at the table, the member for McMahon, will probably resonate with this. Fairfield City Council, together with the Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce, were successful recently in being awarded a $300,000 grant to facilitate the monitoring of CCTV cameras in Cabramatta, Canley Vale and Canley Heights. The former Labor government allocated this funding through the National Crime Prevention Fund. This is a fund which effectively takes money from criminal assets and puts it into community safety projects, so this is a very, very good thing to do. I am assured by the police, including the Cabramatta Local Area Command, that the presence of CCTV cameras and live monitoring would greatly facilitate their job—which is already pretty tough as it is—of suppressing crime in our area.
By way of background: Cabramatta 14 to 15 years ago was the heroin capital of Australia. It was the firearms exchange for the nation. It was only through intensive policing, community engagement and the deployment of emerging technologies at that stage, such as monitored CCTV, that the crime rate in this area plummeted. When that plummeted, community safety obviously went up. Pride in the area went up, and it became an area where people enjoyed being able to socialise and enjoyed being able to live. The police did a fantastic job on our behalf because the community backed them.
Simply taking this money away and depriving the police now of monitored CCTV in this area once again invites the re-emergence of street crime and other antisocial behaviour. We in this place never should put ourselves forward as being law enforcement experts. We should take advice from those on the ground, and their advice when it came to this particular issue was overwhelming. I ask the minister to reconsider the position when it comes to looking at the allocation of funds from the National Crime Prevention Fund to projects of community safety such as what was proposed for the streets of Cabramatta.
Finally, in 2010, when I became the member for Fowler, I committed to dedicate much of my time to supporting organisations that look after the disadvantaged in my community, including the homeless, the elderly and, in particular, those living with disabilities. These organisations play a vital part in our community, particularly in communities of need, such as mine. My electorate is overrepresented, regrettably, with people who live with disabilities. It is a fact that over half the families in New South Wales that live with autism live within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD.
Over the past three years I have conducted a number of disability forums in Fowler to identify and address issues in my community from those living with or caring for and supporting people with disabilities. These forums were designed to bring people with disabilities, carers and service providers together to create a strong local network for supporting disability. The forums also gave people an opportunity to provide their views on the direction for our nation should take on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS—and I think everyone in this place realises this—will benefit all members of our communities who live with disabilities, and this is one of the most vital reforms to come through the former Labor government.
I now intend to put much of my energy into what we need to do to hold this government to account and to shine light on the inconsistencies between the promises that were made before the election and what is being delivered, because this is not the government that people thought they were electing. Since the election on 7 September 2013, Mr Abbott has gone about putting almost a brick wall around this government to avoid public scrutiny. Far from the claim of being a 'measured, steady and purposeful government that says what it means and does what it says', this government instead has stumbled on every vital issue of public policy so far. It is not the government he promised it was going to be. While in opposition they railed against debt and during the election they campaigned against a supposed 'budget emergency', but we now see they are making an agreement with the Greens for unlimited supply of debt which will deprive this place of having any view about debt ceilings in the future. If debt was the issue for them, how can more debt now be the answer? They simply want to avoid scrutiny. That is probably why they did it.
When you look at the other major turn arounds, the other biggest issue in the lead up to the last election was border protection. Gone now is the rhetoric of 'we are going to turn the boats around'; gone is the 'we are going to buy the boats'; and gone is the 'we are going to pay for Indonesian informants' on the movement of boats. The only thing that occurs now is a media blackout. The truth of the matter is that we learn more from the Jakarta Post than we learn from the minister in this parliament. I should have thought that is something that should concern every member who wants open disclosure about border protection, but apparently not.
On the issue of school funding we have seen a lot occur this week—
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
Mr HAYES: No member opposite can possibly want to interject on this, because they must have been stunned by the double backflip with pike on school funding. How is it that we can now sign cheques to states and say there are no strings attached? They are not even committing state or territory governments to matching funding on a two-for-one basis. The strings have gone. This is not a government that wants to be held to account. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Before I call the honourable member for Dobell, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend her the usual courtesies. I have much pleasure in calling the member for Dobell.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (11:04): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I rise to speak on this occasion as the member for Dobell, I sincerely thank the electors of Dobell for this opportunity and I acknowledge the honour and privilege bestowed upon me. To represent the people of Dobell is an honour, as I am only the fourth person, second Liberal and first female in the seat's history to have been given this esteemed privilege. To my constituents, my pledge to you is: I honour my commitment to represent you with integrity and conviction and I will be your strong voice at the table of government.
Dobell is situated on the New South Wales Central Coast and is named after the Australian artist William Dobell. Bound by the Pacific Ocean in the east, Dobell covers an area of approximately 775 square kilometres, which includes the main commercial townships of The Entrance, Tuggerah and Wyong. The electorate is a network of towns that have been linked in recent years by expanding suburban development. Stretching from Blue Haven in the north to Wyoming and Wamberal in the south, from The Entrance in the east through to the Yarramalong and Dooralong Valleys in the west, the electorate of Dobell is a popular tourist and retiree destination. I note that Madam Speaker has come into the chamber. Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives and I thank you in your capacity as the member for MacKellar for the support and assistance you afforded me during the election campaign. Over the last decade, Dobell has also become a popular residential area for young families, due to relative home and land affordability.
Dobell has a rich and colourful history. Prior to European settlement, the area was home to the Guringai and Darkinjung people, and I acknowledge and respect their kinship with the land and environment. It is believed the area was first discovered by Europeans in 1796, when the governor of Tasmania, Colonel David Collins, came across Tuggerah Lakes during the search for an escaped convict, the infamous Molly Morgan. Early European settlement occurred at Wyoming, when in 1824 Frederick Hely purchased land, adjacent to Narara Reserve. Hely named the land after reading a poem about the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania. The US state of Wyoming was named many, many years later than Dobell's Wyoming.
A notable resident of Dobell was Edward Hargraves from Noraville, a gold prospector who is credited with starting the first Australian gold rush in 1851. Hargraves' lasting legacy to the electorate is not his reputation as a gold prospector, his legacy is the Norah Head Lighthouse. The lighthouse was the last significant lighthouse built in New South Wales, completed in 1903 with monetary assistance and much lobbying from Hargraves. Over the years the lighthouse guided mariners as they made the dangerous voyage between Sydney and Newcastle. Unfortunately, not all have been saved. The coast of Dobell witnessed the tragedy of war, with the sinking of two merchant vessels, the Nimbin and the Iron Chieftain, one struck by a German mine and the other torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. Today the Norah Head lighthouse remains an iconic image of our community, its beacon symbolising the shining light of hope for the people of Dobell.
Dobell is an electorate of contrast—contrast between the natural beauty of coastal and mountain terrain, contrast between aspirational Australians and those less fortunate. The people of Dobell represent the foundation upon which the Liberal Party was established. When Sir Robert Menzies spoke of the forgotten people in his famous 1942 speech, the middle class of 1942 he referred to remains today the foundation of our great nation. They are the backbone of Dobell.
After six years of lack of formal representation in Dobell, the people of Dobell became the forgotten people. Now that Dobell has been brought back into the Liberal fold, I am determined as the member to see my electorate placed back on the map for all the right reasons.
I acknowledge the previous Liberal member for Dobell, Ken Ticehurst, and thank Ken for his service to the Dobell community. The coalition government and Liberal representation will return pride to our community, a community we have much to be proud of, a community deserving of credibility and respect, a community deserving of opportunity and investment.
I do not and will not underestimate the challenge ahead as the member for Dobell. My dreams and aspirations are no different to those of many people living in my electorate. We want stable jobs that provide meaningful work that allows us to take out long-term investments in our homes and in our future. We want the same for our children. A stronger economy is the key to almost everything we wish for as a community. It means more jobs, higher wages, better services and ultimately a stronger and more cohesive community.
I want to see Dobell prosper. I want to see a region that offers increased local employment and attracts quality investment opportunities, a region home to a vibrant and healthy community, well supported and connected through coordinated services and infrastructure. With an anticipated population growth in our region of an additional 100,000 people by 2031, the greatest challenge for my electorate is to create approximately 45,000 new local job opportunities. Unfortunately, we currently fall well short on providing the employment choices demanded by our broader population, with approximately 38,000 commuters leaving the region on a daily basis to seek work in other regions.
I am all too aware of the tremendous burden placed on the majority of our working population, which has to commute, spending on average five hours travelling to and from work daily. I understand and have firsthand experience of the social and economic pressure this places on the many commuting households of Dobell. My two sons, Kevin and Cameron, face the reality that they may have to either commute or move to Sydney to find employment. My children are no different to the other tens of thousands of young people on the Central Coast. I know what this means to families, for parents to want jobs for their children and for parents to want to work closer to their children during the day. Unfortunately, we face considerable challenges addressing these needs. With a daily exodus of commuters, I acknowledge the need for our region to develop sustainable jobs within strong industries, be it tourism, manufacturing or otherwise.
On current figures, our region's unemployment rate is well above the national average. While this alone is cause for concern, it is when you place the search for employment into the broader picture that the true level of challenges are realised. As a government, our responsibility to the people of Dobell is to adopt policy that encourages prosperity, not withholds it, and to invest in the electorate wisely, consistent with the values and needs of our constituents. The only real and lasting way to strengthen the Dobell economy is to develop more opportunities for residents to work.
Small business is the engine room of the Central Coast economy. Collectively, small business is the largest employer on the Central Coast. Dobell has 3,980 employing businesses. Only 24 of these businesses employ more than 200 people. This not only highlights our dependence on small business as an employment generator; it exposes our risk within a fragile economy. We cannot have a strong and healthy society without a strong economy to sustain it, and we would not have a strong economy without profitable businesses.
Government does not create jobs; government does not produce wealth. Business creates jobs; business produces wealth. My experience in developing and implementing compliance programs for a government regulator provided me with firsthand knowledge of the impact of regulation and cost of compliance on business. To the small business operators of Dobell, I acknowledge your hard work and the sacrifice that each of you make. I have listened to you when you have told me that, in order to grow, to become more productive and ultimately to create more job opportunities, you need assistance by reducing regulatory burden.
Red and green tape is choking the life out of the engine room of our economy. I welcome Her Excellency the Governor-General's encouragement of the government's intention to cut red tape costs on businesses and community groups by $1 billion a year. I welcome the government's commitment to repeal the carbon tax and mining tax.
I want to see Dobell become the place of choice for attracting new businesses by providing vibrant and growing centres. I recognise the need for new centres, such as the Warnervale Town Centre, and the revitalisation of The Entrance, which will provide new business opportunities, local jobs and housing for the region's growing population.
When we talk about providing local jobs, the reality is that we cannot always provide the dream job for people in Dobell. Therefore, we must ensure that the commute is safe and easy and that we reduce travel times. A vital piece of economic infrastructure to reduce travel times is the M1 to M2 link. I am proud that the coalition government will build the missing M1 to M2 link.
We all want jobs for our families; we want to be able to provide hope, reward and opportunity to our children, siblings, nieces and nephews. We owe it to the young people of Dobell to plan for future skills. Our full-time unemployment rate for young people alarmingly exceeds the national average. Being a parent of two young men and having spoken to many families in the same situation, it is clear to me that our electorate lacks the necessary opportunities to retain our young workforce. Our region unfortunately experiences a high migration of our 19- to 29-year-olds seeking opportunity outside the region. The decision of our young people to relocate is never made lightly. The inevitable exodus means that we lose tomorrow's workforce and future leaders to metropolitan areas, where there are substantially more opportunities. For many of our young people, access to higher education remains a substantial barrier to employment. In Dobell only 50 per cent of secondary students obtain year 12 qualifications and only 14 per cent of people aged 17 to 22 are currently participating in higher education. There is no instant fix.
I recognise the importance of working closely with local education and employment providers to identify at-risk youth, to provide them with pathways to increase both educational outcomes and employment opportunities. It is crucial that we adopt a coordinated approach to delivering government funding and programs that are geared towards addressing these issues.
In Dobell there are many organisations striving to assist young people to complete their education, identifying further training opportunities, including apprenticeship and trainee programs, and often simply instilling belief in a young person that they can have a prosperous future. I support the partnering with businesses and training organisations to develop quality training options linked to employment opportunities.
My commitment to provide opportunity to our young people is demonstrated in the government's investment in the development of the local youth skills and employment centres at Tuggerah and Wyong. These facilities and effective programs will lead to greater training opportunities and future local job creation, resulting in a local highly skilled workforce.
With substantial growth forecast in the north of my electorate, it is vitally important we start planning for our children's educational future today. I believe every child is entitled to access quality education. I support improving academic standards to provide young people with the education they need to succeed. However, higher standards will mean absolutely nothing unless we provide our tertiary institutions, schools and students with the resources and the support necessary to meet their needs. The quality of education our children receive is directly related to the quality of support for teachers and schools. I will fight to invest more resources in schools and live up to the promise of education reform, including provision of adequate resources to meet requirements for special-needs students to ensure children with disabilities receive the support and services they require.
We are blessed in Dobell with a beautiful natural environment which attracts thousands of tourists each year. For many years the Central Coast was a popular weekend holiday destination for Sydneysiders seeking a short break away from home. Today our tourism embodies the struggles we face as a region. Tourism underpins our small-business economy, with many businesses solely reliant on the warmer summer months to provide an income to last them all year. The township of The Entrance remains our prime tourist destination, hosting events such as the country music festival and Chromefest. However, these events are not enough to sustain our local economy throughout the year. It is therefore important that we promote our best asset—our natural environment.
Promotion of Tuggerah Lakes is crucial to our fledgling tourism industry; unfortunately, rapid urban development has impacted on the quality of this valuable natural resource. This is why I am committed to ensuring the restoration of the lakes to their former natural glory through securing funding for vital restoration works.
Dobell is home to the most beautiful beaches in New South Wales, which are the No. 1 drawcard for tourists to our region over the summer months. Ensuring the safety of the many beachgoers are the men and women of Surf Life Saving Central Coast, who risk their lives season after season ensuring safety on our beaches. I am proud to support Surf Life Saving Central Coast and to congratulate them on 75 years of service to our community.
Whilst renowned for its natural beauty, Dobell is home to a strong sporting community that many other regions would be envious of. The people of Dobell have a passion for sport which is evidenced in the many outstanding achievements of our sports men and women. I acknowledge the importance of voluntary effort and voluntary organisations and commend the many Dobell sporting clubs and volunteers for their commitment and dedication in providing opportunity to the thousands of registered players who participate across the electorate in their chosen sport.
Through my association with my local community, I am proud to have actively supported sporting community groups, such as the Warnervale Rugby Club, in establishing opportunities for young people in the Warnervale area. I also acknowledge and recognise the importance of the provision of quality sporting venues and benefits of sports tourism. I am committed to ensuring that Dobell will emerge as the sports tourism capital of New South Wales. Our election commitment to commence crucial land acquisition and planning studies for the Central Coast Regional Sporting and Recreational Complex at Tuggerah will lead to the development of a premier sports facility on the Central Coast.
As a Liberal, I believe in Australia, its people and its future. I believe in what the Liberal Party represents, in its values, in its beliefs and that good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honoured and recognised. My strong belief in these values is the reason I joined the Liberal Party. I am proud to be recognised as a Liberal in my community.
My family and I are proud to be part of the Dobell community, a community we have called home for nearly 15 years, a community that welcomed us when we, like so many other families, relocated to the Central Coast to provide our children a healthy and affordable lifestyle.
I was 10 years old when I arrived in Australia with my parents and brother Hugh. Never in my wildest dreams as a child growing up in north-east England would I have envisaged that, one day, I would hold the honour of being an elected member of the Australian parliament. Australian citizenship afforded me with opportunity, opportunity I will always honour and respect.
I grew up in Emu Plains, which back in the mid-1970s was as far west as you could go. It was an idyllic childhood, spending summers swinging off Tarzan ropes across the Nepean River. It was a childhood without responsibility or care. When it came time to leave school after completing year 12 I, like so many of my generation, had a choice: you left school on the Friday and commenced work with either a bank or the Public Service on the Monday. How times have changed. I joined the Public Service.
I am proud of my career with the Public Service. It is a service that taught me the values of discipline, transparency and accountability. The role of public servants should never be understated: we are solicitors, accountants, managers and policy experts. During my career I held senior management roles in various New South Wales government departments, roles and experiences that have equipped me well for the position I now hold, the highest form of public service one can aspire to: member of the Australian parliament.
Early in my career I realised the importance of tertiary education. I thank my good friend Denis Shultz for his support in encouraging me to study law. Law is a discipline that has served me well. My first legal position was as a litigation officer with the State Rail Authority of New South Wales. It was a role that, whilst fulfilling, taught me humility and empathy, as I spent many hours preparing coronial briefs and assisting before the Coroner's Court of New South Wales. A highlight of my career with the State Rail Authority was my appointment as a senior officer. It was in this role, as an area manager with Trackfast, that I met my husband, John, to whom I owe so much. He has stood beside me throughout this journey, supporting me and encouraging me to believe in myself. To my wonderful husband: I thank you for your eternal optimism, support and encouragement.
In the mid-1990s John and I returned to the UK with our young family. During this time, raising two young sons in London and Edinburgh, not a day went by when I did not think about Australia and look forward to returning to Australian shores. The experience of residing overseas made me more appreciative of this beautiful nation and great democracy of ours. It is a nation that affords opportunity to all, without prejudice of class, education or gender. Australia is truly the lucky country and we should never take this great nation of ours for granted.
I am sincerely grateful to my parents for the wise decision they made to emigrate to Australia. It was a decision made in search of a better future and opportunity, a decision that made me who I am today.
In life we are presented with different roads to follow and we encounter many detours along the way. One road I chose, the road of politics, definitely presented many detours and, if drawing an analogy to the roads in Dobell, there were plenty of potholes.
Before I acknowledge those who provided their support to the Dobell campaign, I would like to pay tribute to a good friend and Liberal colleague Lisa Maree, who, sadly, passed away prior to the election campaign. Lisa Maree was not only a friend and colleague, she was a valued member of the Dobell community. Lisa Maree: our achievements in Dobell are for you.
Without the support and friendship of many I would not be here today, and to you all I am eternally grateful. To my wonderful family—my husband John and son Kevin, who are in the gallery today, and son Cameron, who is in London representing New South Wales Country Rugby Union—thank you for your unconditional love and support. Thank you to my parents, Hugh and Jane, who taught me self-reliance and self-responsibility. To my best friend Karen and her husband Tony: thank you for your friendship and support. Thank you to Teena McQueen for her entertaining campaign style and critique and to Aileen Wiessner for her friendship and wise counsel.
Our result in Dobell and achievement of the second-highest swing in New South Wales would not have been possible without the assistance of many. While the list is long and time does not permit me to list everyone, to each and every one of you: I sincerely thank you from my heart. You know who you are and the contribution you made to a better Dobell.
While I am indebted to the hundreds of people who assisted in the campaign, I wish to acknowledge those who were with me every day of our 18-month campaign. My sincere thanks to my campaign manager, Luke Nayna, whose birthday it is today, and to Susan and Brian Elliott, Andrew Gregory, and Tracey and Brian Perrem, who gave so much of their time to assist in doorknocking over 22,000 homes, assist at street stalls and stand with me greeting commuters at 5.30 am. My sincere thanks to Brian Loughnane, Mark Neeham and the team at New South Wales state secretariat. Thank you to the members of the Dobell FEC branches, Terrigal branch, Mackellar FEC, the Young Liberals and former member for Robertson the Hon. Jim Lloyd. I acknowledge the support from my state parliamentary and Wyong Shire colleagues and thank them for their assistance. Thank you to Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who provided support, friendship and encouragement, and to Senator Arthur Sinodinos, a true champion of the Central Coast, who provided hours of support, guidance and commitment throughout the campaign. My sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for his support and for placing his trust in me. And thank you to the many now government ministers and to former Prime Minister John Howard for sharing my vision for Dobell and belief in the people of Dobell.
A wise man once said, 'There is no limit to what Australia can achieve.' I conclude by congratulating and thanking the individuals who were not fazed by the challenge of Dobell and believed there was and is no limit to what we can achieve in Dobell.
The SPEAKER (11:29): Before I call the honourable member for Robertson, who will be giving her maiden speech, I would like to acknowledge Mr Ken Ticehurst, a former member for Dobell, and Mr Jim Lloyd, a former member for Robertson, who are both present. I ask that members extend to the member for Robertson the same courtesies as we have throughout the maiden speeches and as we have just done for the member for Dobell.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (11:30): Madam Speaker, entering St Christopher's Cathedral in Canberra for the ecumenical service on the morning of the historic opening of the 44th Parliament of Australia, I was struck by a sense of the magnificent responsibility and privilege carried by each of us elected to serve our communities and our nation. In that moment, and for just a moment, partisan politics was subsumed by tradition and the greater call on each of our lives, articulating our purpose, our history and our hopes for Australia. As we walked back outside after that service, a sense of my own history meshed with the present, as I recalled an old photograph of my parents on their wedding day, standing in the same place outside the same cathedral in Canberra, and their own sense of purpose, hope and future captured in time by the camera's lens.
My father was a teacher and our family lived in various places around New South Wales: Canberra, Cowra, Walcha, Gosford. But it did not seem to matter where we lived, because our nation's capital was also our family's capital, centring as it did around my grandparents, Raymond and Mary Ellen Gilligan, their six children and 20 grandchildren. Many Gilligans are here in the gallery today, and I thank them for it.
I remember listening to my relatives debating current affairs and politics in grandma's lounge room, while arguing as to whose turn it was to make the next cup of tea. My grandmother, who everyone called Molly, was a wonderful role model to her daughters and granddaughters. She encouraged us to pursue our dreams—but not always our political views. Her greatest political hero was Paul Keating and her arch enemy was my own hero, the then Prime Minister John Howard. I owe a great debt to Molly, because the back and forth of our debates over a cup of tea and a biscuit gave me opportunities to test and sharpen my ideas and political beliefs against a passionate and committed advocate of political thought.
My family's background is a bit of a mix: on the one side, my great-grandmother, Ellen Mary, was a Cullen, whose forebears were sent by Cardinal Cullen to Australia from Ireland to help establish Catholic schooling in New South Wales; on the other, my great-great-grandfather, Francis Gilligan, was sent out as a convict from Ireland to Australia in 1849. Francis’ crime was a political one, known as a 'whiteboy' offence. He sought justice for Irish labouring families, including his own, by fighting poverty brought about by the Great Potato Famine and an economic system that favoured wealthy Irish landowners at the expense of the poor. But with no democratic or parliamentary means of righting a wrong, it would seem, Francis took matters into his own hands and threw fire onto the thatched roof of a local magistrate's home. Something of Francis' stubborn streak and railing against perceived injustice has been passed down through the generations. I do hope, that as the great-great-granddaughter of a political rebel and a missionary, I can bring the best of both perspectives: concern for fairness and a desire for a principled approach to public policy debate, with perhaps just the odd, occasional verbal fireball thrown in for good measure.
My father is a farmer's son from Dubbo. His parents, Rae and Joyce Warren, were strong, stoic and hardworking and fostered strength and resilience in each of their three children. It is a trait that I hope will continue through the generations. My parents, Max and Mary Warren, who are in the gallery today, encouraged each of us to do our best and to become our best. From my father, I learnt the value of hard work, of integrity, of standing up for what you believe in—even at great personal cost—of not cutting corners, of the importance of family and people and of a genuine and deep love for our God.
My mother nurtured in me and modelled for me compassion and empathy towards others, an appreciation of beauty and music and a passion for truth and tenacity, despite any circumstance. Both are well known locally for their many decades of service to the Central Coast in education and in ministry. Today, I pay them tribute. I am Max and Mary's daughter, and proud to be so.
There is no suburb in the electorate of Robertson that is not without its unique character and environment. Its beauty is breathtaking: Killcare Beach, the sunsets at Niagara Park going over the hill, sunrise on Brisbane Water when the first rays hit the Lady Kendall moored at Gosford, Lisarow's rural acreages, the waves and surf at Avoca Beach, the Peninsula's stunning waterways and its wildlife, and Terrigal’s welcoming atmosphere.
Robertson is a Federation seat, named in honour of Sir John Robertson, who served as the Premier of New South Wales five times between 1860 and 1886. Unlike my firebrand ancestor, Francis Gilligan, Sir John Robertson worked within the established 19th century economic and democratic structures to campaign tirelessly for land reform, breaking the monopoly of the establishment squatters to open up more opportunities for smaller farmers in New South Wales. His achievements enabled more farmers to pursue individual enterprise and productivity.
My uncle, Paul Gilligan, is also in the gallery today. A firebrand himself, and a keen advocate for a fair go for small-business people, Paul and his family have been tremendous supporters throughout my whole life and especially during the campaign. I thank you.
People in Robertson live in the best place in the world. But the heartbeat of the Central Coast is its people and their concerns, their hopes and their dreams. When you visit Ettalong Beach, or pick up a newspaper at the local newsagents in Kincumber, or shop in Erina, or do business in Umina or catch an early morning train from Gosford Station, you will hear and perhaps even join the conversations that happen every day around Robertson that articulate people’s aspirations for our community.
You will hear a passion to see our city grow and thrive. You will be inspired by a determination to tackle the current challenges that we face with the rising cost of living, the lack of local employment opportunities—especially with small businesses doing it tough on the Central Coast at the moment—with one in four young people who want to work unable find employment opportunities locally, and with 30,000 to 40,000 commuters who leave early in the morning to Sydney or Newcastle and return home late at night because their job opportunities take them away from their families. You will hear in these conversations that these challenges do not have to be permanent markers of life on the Central Coast.
It is the dreams, the aspirations and the ambitions of people living in Robertson that have become my own. My commitment to them is to fight, with every fibre of my being, for a future where more choice and more opportunity abound. The experience of my husband, Chris, who in the 17 years we have been married has never been able to work locally, and whose round trip commute takes over four hours a day, does not have to be the future experience of my four-year-old son, Oscar, or three-year-old daughter, Mollie-Joy.
I look forward to the day when Coasties no longer have leave for Sydney or Newcastle or anywhere else in the world to find the sort of economic, career, educational or other advancement opportunities they may want, because they will find them here: in Gosford, in Woy Woy, in West Gosford, in Erina and in Somersby.
As a young girl growing up in Point Clare in the mid- to late-eighties, I well remember the impact a federal Labor government's fiscal policies had on my own family. The eldest of five kids in a largely single-income family, I have never forgotten some of the everyday struggles we had to make ends meet in the days of interest rate numbers that reached the high teens; of selling my mother's prized possession, her piano; of working with Dad several mornings every week to deliver pamphlets and papers before school and on weekends to help pay the bills. We got through, and I learnt a lot about the value of hard work and good budgeting—but I also learnt a lot about the positive impact of a strong economy, lower taxes and easing the burden of the cost of living.
That is why I am proud to join this parliament as a representative of the Liberal Party, a party that has always championed reward for hard work and effort, respect for individual enterprise, concern for families and a belief in a better future for all. After all, if a 15-year-old schoolgirl in Narara who aspired to represent her local community as the member for Robertson one day can achieve her dream, all of us can. So now, Madam Speaker, may my dream be to achieve my electorate's dreams.
I acknowledge and express appreciation for her service to our community, to my predecessor Deborah O'Neill, now serving as a Labor Senator in another place. I also express appreciation and heartfelt thanks to the people of Robertson for electing me to serve as their 14th representative in this place. To each one I pledge to stand up, every single day, to champion your concerns, your aspirations and your hopes for the benefit of every family, every business owner and every individual in my electorate who knows that things can be better tomorrow than they are today.
I first joined the Liberal Party in my mid-twenties because I wanted to make a difference in my community, especially for young people as a teacher. Young people are the future of our nation. I know the value of a decent education. It is an enabler of achievement and opportunity, and it breaks the shackles of narrow thinking and limited experience. Of course, freedom of choice in education is fundamental to achieving this goal. I know that, in choosing to send all five children to a Christian school, my parents made great personal and financial sacrifices in order to be able to exercise that choice.
But education goes beyond schools, universities and vocational education colleges. One of the challenges I see in today's society is a trend of allowing the responsibility for raising children and imparting strong social and ethical values and mores to shift, however subtly, from our family and community structures to institutional ones. It is not a school or pre-school's job to raise our children; it is ours, as parents, and our responsibility as legislators is to promote the best possible policies that protect and strengthen the role of families and provides the best possible outcomes for the future of our young Australians. So I welcome the coalition government's commitment to more flexible, affordable and accessible child care. We want our system of child care to provide a safe, nurturing environment for children in a way that also reflects the working needs of today's families and today's economy.
Travel down to Sydney from Woy Woy or Narara any morning of the week and you will hear on the train story after story about the challenges Central Coast families face juggling work and raising a young family. You will hear about people like Amy, from East Gosford, who shared with me recently her difficult decision to not return to her old job in Sydney after having her second child, because the opening hours at her long-day care centre could not cater for evening pick-ups; or the young mother I spoke with when I was shopping at my local supermarket in Erina, who raised the difficulties she encounters juggling evening shift work with child care, especially during those weeks when her husband is away from home. As a working parent myself, I know the benefits that a more flexible and accessible approach will bring.
As a Liberal, I know that any additional flexibility in applying the Child Care Rebate will not only provide more options for in-home care or out-of-hours care, it will also enable more families in Robertson to make decisions about how their child is cared for and by whom. It is for this reason that I pause for a moment to reflect on the bedrock of Australian society: the family. I believe that smaller government favours families and that the best way to strengthen marriages and families is to empower individuals to take personal responsibility for their own choices and to equip them with as many tools and services that may help them to make the best decisions possible for their future, for their children's future and for our nation's future. But, in recent times, the public-policy debate about families has been superseded by a philosophical tussle about the definition of marriage, when what we really ought to be concerned about is how we can strengthen families. After all, it is the family, not the government, that should be the prime institution for fostering the values on which our great society is built. There are more than 36,000 families in my electorate of Robertson, and almost 20 per cent of them are single-parent households. I know that many families on the Coast struggle with the cost of living, with job security, with the challenge of commuting and with child care, so I am proud to be part of a strong coalition government that will reduce cost-of-living pressures for families, ease pressure on interest rates, deliver affordable and flexible child care, and create more employment and education opportunities in my electorate of Robertson. By supporting our families, in whatever form they may take, as the most fundamental institution for the development of the individual, we are taking care of our nation's future.
As the former president of an outstanding organisation in the Liberal Party, the Liberal Women's Council, New South Wales, I am a passionate advocate of seeing more women take their place in positions of leadership and influence around our world. The very fact that our culture and our history can allow for this means we should seize every opportunity to promote women on the basis of merit, which is more than many societies and cultures allow for today.
May I join the chorus of congratulations that has echoed around this chamber and pay tribute to you, Madam Speaker, for your elevation to your high office. It is truly befitting your many years of service to Australia, and I add my good wishes and gratitude to those you have already received from my colleagues. You may be 'Madam Speaker' now, but for many years you were Bronwyn Bishop, the articulate political advocate and warrior whom I admired from afar. In recent years, I have come to know you as 'Bronwyn', and I thank you, Bronwyn, for your support, your advice, your mentoring and your trailblazing so many firsts in your political career—all of them on merit.
We fought a long and tough election battle to win the hearts and minds of the people of Robertson. It was only made possible by the support of so many people that I grew up with, people I worked with and passionate Liberal Party supporters keen to deliver the change that people told us every day they so desperately wanted—change that we were determined to deliver. Every person helped us made a difference, and without you I would not be standing here today. I pay tribute to my campaign manager, Bob Mudge, and to my deputy campaign manager and friend, Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond, who both worked tirelessly and passionately every single day to build a strong and committed team of volunteers around us. To my local Liberal Party conference, led by Bob Ward: thank you for your dedication to the Liberal cause and to winning Robertson. To the Hon. Jim Lloyd, the former Liberal member for Robertson for many years : thank you for your service and leadership in our community.
Thank you to the hundreds of loyal volunteers, including Margaret Watson, Colin Marchant, Colin Wood, Lois Marshall, Bev Ferrier, Andrew Clark, Hannah Eves, Tom Raine, Suzanne Hunter, Liz Reynolds, Godfrey Franz, Todd Kirby, Theresa Giddings, Yvonne Crestani, Sam Moulder, Julian Harniman, Bruce Richards, Steve Foley, Jack Morrison, Jackson Black, Mary Doherty, Pam Collins, Barbara Whittaker, Richard Keogh, Ben Potts, Sara More, Louise de Martin, Alan Draper, Deb Warwick, Mark Porter, Lachie Aver, Justin French, Malcolm and Patricia Brooks, and Amy and Tobias Lehmann. And to our friends and supporters in the Liberal Women's Council and also in the Bradfield, Mackellar and Mitchell conferences: I will always be in your debt and at your service.
To each of the 150 people in the gallery today: thank you for what you have done and for making the trip to Canberra this morning. Thank you to Julius Chen and Taylor Gramoski for spending countless hours supporting me in the last weeks of the campaign. To the Young Liberal Flying Squad, led by Joshua Crawford and Taylor Gramoski: thank you both for your passion, diligence and outstanding resolve to flood our streets every weekend with dozens and sometimes hundreds of Young Liberal volunteers, balloons and t-shirts.
To Peta Credlin; to Michelle Moffat; and to Mark Neeham, Aaron Henry, Aileen Weissner, Alicia McCumstie and the team at Liberal Party CHQ: I thank you for your professionalism, your support and the outstanding work you did throughout the campaign. To 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones: thank you for your commitment and drive in seeking a better future for the Central Coast.
To former Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard: thank you for your lifetime of championing the Liberal cause and for your personal support throughout the campaign. To Prime Minister Tony Abbott: thank you for your outstanding leadership and for your personal acknowledgement of the importance of ensuring that the Central Coast is a place of opportunity and hope. To Gosford City Council Mayor Lawrie McKinna, to Monique Marks and to John Singleton: thank you for your passion for the Central Coast, to make it a better place to live and to work.
To my mentors and friends Scott Morrison, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, Paul Fletcher, Bob Baldwin, the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones and Damien Jones, Chris Holstein, David Quilty, Hollie Hughes, Scott Farlow, Simon Fontana and Simon Berger: thank you. To Alex Hawke, once an adversary but now a true friend: I much prefer fighting alongside you than against you, Alex! Thank you for your tireless belief that we would win.
To Nick Campbell: you truly went the extra mile, and then some, to support our campaign to win Robertson, and I honour you and your family for your tremendous sacrifice, support, wisdom, encouragement and friendship. To Scott and Gina Banner, and Gavin and Ruth Middleton, great friends over a lifetime: thank you for always being there and for loving us regardless.
To my family, my parents and my siblings—Nick, Cecilia, Ben, Nat and Dan: you are glad to be with me no matter what I do, and I love you for it. To Chris, my rock and partner for nearly half my life: you bring out the best in me, you believe in me and you cherish me. I am here with your full support and perhaps also because of it. To Oscar and to Mollie-Joy: I love you more than words can say. I serve my community, my party and my nation to serve you. May I do all I can to repay the sacrifices you each make every single day; and, Oscar and Mollie-Joy, may I never be too old to jump on the trampoline with you or too important to switch my phone off when we spend time together.
To my God: may I know what it means, like Esther, to be born for such a time as this.
To my community and to the electors of Robertson: may I never, ever let you down. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (11:51): I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren Jones, member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (11:53): I have received advice from Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Vasta to be a member of the committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in place of Mr Alexander.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (11:53): by leave—I move:
That Mr Alexander be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and that in his place Mr Vasta be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:
(1) in his Second Reading Speech, the Minister acknowledged:
(a) the importance of communications infrastructure to our economy; and
(b) the unforseen evolution of technology and services that could be facilitated using submarine communications cables when Australia's links were first developed in the nineteenth century;
(2) it is critical for policy makers to adopt a forward-looking view of our nation's communications and infrastructure requirements; and
(3) the assertion that broadband speeds of 25Mbps will continue to be sufficient for the needs of Australian households in future is inconsistent with items (1) and (2)."
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (11:54): I thank all members who have participated in debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013. As honourable members know, submarine cables ensure that Australia is connected to the rest of the world. They are the vital sinews in our global telecommunications infrastructure. The bill before the House will improve the operation of the submarine cable protection regime and will ensure our regime continues to be best practice, and that the protection it affords to submarine cables is maintained. The recommendations made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to improve the operation of the regime following its review form the basis of the amendments in the bill, along with other proposals that will further enhance the regime protecting submarine cables connected to Australia.
It is somewhat serendipitous that we are debating this bill now in December, as this is also the 50th anniversary of the official opening of the undersea COMPAC cable. The COMPAC coaxial cable forms part of a global submarine and terrestrial telecommunications network linking the nations of the Commonwealth. It was officially opened on 3 December 1963 by the Queen, after which the prime ministers of Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand participated in a conference call. The cable was landed in Australia in my own electorate of Wentworth right at Bondi Beach. It significantly increased the capacity and reliability of communications between Australia, Europe and North America, and provided Australia with a better link to the global communications network. It was delivered by the cooperative efforts of telecommunications authorities of the four nations under the direction of a management committee headed by Australia's TA Housely, the general manager of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The project has been described in Mr Housley's biography as 'probably the most important milestone in Australian international telecommunications since the landing of the first telegraph cable at Port Darwin in 1871'.
COMPAC was complemented by the SEACOM cable, completed in 1967 to improve communications capacity with South-East Asia. Both were part of an overarching plan better to integrate Australia with the rest of the world. At a cost plan of 33½ million pounds, it was a large investment. That is something well worth remembering, particularly given the significant changes in telecommunications in the intervening 50 years. I was reminded of this anniversary by members of the Overseas Telecommunications Veterans Association who worked on the project. I acknowledge here the important contribution they and others who have worked in telecommunications in the past have made to our nation's advancement. Their achievements over many years—then and continuing—are ones that all Australians can be very proud of.
After 50 years, there are few things that are the same. The Queen, who opened the cable and initiated it with the first call, is still the Queen—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: despite the efforts of some of us.
Ms Hall: She is still there, Malcolm!
Ms King interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: I note these protestations of royal loyalty from the opposition benches! The Prime Minister will be very gratified to hear them! Submarine cables are still a crucial part of our telecommunications infrastructure—and that is another continuity—and our reliance on them is greater than ever. As I said in my second reading speech, the technologies have changed dramatically. Coaxial cables were a great innovation developed in the 1950s by British Telecom but the arrival of fibre optics has completely transformed the capacity for carrying data traffic around the world and indeed across nations, to every corner of our economy and our society.
Another very big change has been the emergence of the private sector in providing this sort of telecommunications infrastructure. Prior to the late 1990s, subsea cables of this kind, whether they were coaxial or subsequently fibre, were constructed by consortia of telecommunications carriers. They were generally described therefore as club cables.
In Australia, all of these cables were club cables until 2008. It was then that a number of privately owned cables, including PIPE International's, for example, started to be built. Today, Australia's submarine cables are operated by the private sector. The main players are Southern Cross Cable, which operates the cable of that name; PIPE International, which operates PPC1; Telstra, which operates APNG-2; and Telstra Endeavour, SingTel and Reach, which operate the SEA-ME-WE 3 cable.
The private sector has responded very well to growth in the demand for international submarine cable capacity and is well aware of the potential for future traffic growth. That is not to say that mistakes cannot be made in investment in subsea cables. There was a catastrophic—catastrophic for the investors—overinvestment in subsea cable capacity in the late 1990s. I remember that very well, having been on the board of Reach at the time. There was a dramatic overexpansion of capacity and almost all, if not all, of those ventures went into bankruptcy. But of course the cables remained and over time that capacity has been filled. Having learnt that lesson, the private sector has been much more careful about new projects and we have seen some further investments, especially on the Perth to Singapore route, being announced by the Nextgen Group, SubPartners and Trident.
Several cables off the east coast of Australia have also been foreshadowed. SubPartners and Hawaiki Pty Ltd have announced proposals to construct cables connecting Australia and the United States. Telstra, Vodafone NZ and Telecom NZ have recently announced a joint venture to build an additional cable between Australia and New Zealand.
Similarly, on the domestic front, we need to consider the relative roles of the private sector and the public sector in delivering telecommunications in Australia. One of the most lamentable blunders of the Labor government was to turn its back on a generation of reform in telecommunications and to re-establish the Postmaster General, in effect, by creating a new government-owned entity to build a monopoly telecommunications network in the form of the NBN.
While this bill is not directly about the NBN, I note that opposition members spoke about it at some length and I see the shadow minister, the honourable member for Blaxland, is here. I want to address some of the remarks that he made. He said:
Labor's argument is, if fibre is the end game, if we are going to need it, then just like the submarine fibre cables which are the focus of this legislation, we should plan for the future and build it now. Japan, South Korea and Singapore are all investing in fibre to the premises.
The issue with the NBN is not about the technical capacities of fibre-optic cables. No-one is arguing that there is the capacity to carry more data, more cost effectively, on fibre than on, for example, coaxial cables. The question is: what is the most cost-effective solution for the last 400 or 500 metres into the customer's premises? It is sometimes referred to as a 'last mile' question but, in fact, we are talking about a much shorter length. The problem with a ubiquitous fibre-to-the premises rollout is not that it has some technical deficiencies; it has some great technical capacity. But the problem is that it costs so much and it takes so long to build. That is why I have always said if time and money were of no account, in an ideal world and in that fantasy world where time and money do not matter you would have fibre everywhere. Why not? But there are a lot of other things you would have in that fantasy world too. We do not live in a fantasy world. So the object and the responsibility of governments is obviously to deliver infrastructure in a cost-effective way.
The member for Blaxland's remarks are so revealing because they show a complete ignorance or indifference to the time value of money. Without arguing whether fibre to the premises is, ultimately, going to be essential, even accepting that at some point in time there will be a demand for it, any rational person would make an investment as close as possible to the point where the demand will actually arise. Because, if you invest $100 million today on which you can only get a return when there is demand for it in 10 years time, you have decided to get no return on that $100 million investment for a decade. And then, if you are talking about technology, you are essentially saying: we are going to meet the demands of a decade or two decades hence with the technology of today. So whether you are looking at it in a rational financial fashion or whether you are recognising the enormous value of optionality in matters of technology, common sense says that you should build your infrastructure to meet the demands of today and those that you can foresee in the medium term. For longer term demands, if you have the capacity, as you clearly do with telecommunications, to invest closer to the date when that demand arises, then do so then. You save a huge amount of money and you are investing in the technology of the future, not in the technology of the day.
The government, as honourable members know, has promised that it will deliver the National Broadband Network sooner, cheaper and more affordably than would be the case under Labor's plan. Next week we will be publishing the strategic review that the company is in the process of finalising. That will give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the state of the project as it is, how much it will cost and how long it will take to complete on the previous government's specifications and what options are open to the company, and hence the government, to complete it in a more cost-effective fashion. That is completely at odds with the approach of the previous government. If honourable members want some reference to that, I refer them to a remark by the former NBN CEO, Mike Quigley, the day before yesterday. He said, in response to complaints that because NBN Co. had missed all its targets he should have been more conservative in setting his targets—a fair comment, you would think:
You do think, should I have been more conservative? But the timescales are already set for you, the time frames are already put out there for you so there's not much you can do.
From Mr Quigley's own lips he said he was given targets and timetables and time frames by the government for political purposes because they wanted to look good from an electoral point of view. He knew he could not meet them, but there was nothing he could do about it.
There has been a complete transformation in the relationship between the government and the NBN Co. since the election. I have said to the NBN Co.: 'Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. You tell me what you honestly, hand on heart, believe you can deliver, at what cost and in what time frame. Give us those factual options and then we as a government will make policy decisions.' Paying people a lot of money to tell you what you want to hear is one of the worst investments, as we have seen from the woeful performance of the previous government on the NBN.
I have just responded to the remarks about the NBN. This bill, I believe, has the support of the opposition. The second reading amendment before the chamber is obviously a stunt and has no merit, but the bill nonetheless is a very important reform and I commend it to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The immediate question is that the opposition amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (12:10): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Appointment
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (12:11): Madam Speaker has received two messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the messages to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Electoral Matters Committee
Appointment
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (12:11): Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution:
After paragraph (3), insert:
(3A) for the purposes of the inquiry into the 2013 election only, participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whips or any minority group or independent Member, and, in the Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent Senator, and such participating member:
(a) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes of forming a quorum if a majority of members of the committee are not present; and
(b) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any question before the committee.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (12:11): I move:
That the amendment be considered immediately.
Question agreed to.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (12:11): I move:
That the amendment to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (12:12): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (12:13): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (12:14): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (12:15): I rise today to speak on the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013. Price disclosure was first introduced in 2007 and is something Labor has always been very supportive of. The PBS has been in existence in Australia since 1948. The PBS is the envy of many systems over the world. At the time of its creation it provided free medicines to pensioners, as well as 139 'lifesaving and disease preventing' medicines for free to certain other individuals. I cannot imagine even now that the creators of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme would have imagined the scale and scope of it or the technologies that have been developed since. The number of medicines covered by the PBS is now in the thousands.
The scheme provides subsidised medicines to all Australians and means that concession patients pay no more than $5.90 for any PBS listed medicine. The remainder of the cost is covered by the government. The cost of this to government is around $9 billion per year, a substantial proportion of the health budget. The government negotiates with each drug manufacturer to agree on a price that a drug will be listed at on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is critical, therefore, that the government gets the best value for money out of the PBS. It is also of the utmost importance that the PBS is managed effectively and that the government gets the best price for medicines as possible.
Price disclosure, which is the content of this bill, delivers savings for government but, more importantly, provides Australian consumers with cheaper medicines. It has the additional benefit of requiring less administration. That is why Labor pursued this policy in government—because it reduces administration as well as costs to government, the pharmaceutical sector and consumers.
The original price disclosure reforms from 2007 covered only a very small number of off-patent medicines. In government, Labor introduced further reforms in 2010 that extended price disclosure to include almost all drugs around which there is multibrand competition. Drug manufacturers are required to tell the government how much they sell their medicines to pharmacists for. Simplified or accelerated price disclosure reduces the amount of time between when a manufacturer notifies the government of a reduction in price and when the government starts paying this reduced price. Previously the government continued to pay the agreed price for a drug even when pharmacists were paying the manufacturer a price that might have dropped significantly. It is common sense, therefore, that the government should not be paying more than the market price for drugs, especially because it is taxpayers' money.
The savings from these changes are expected to be of the order of some $835 million, commencing from 1 October next year. It is an incredibly important element of this bill. Since accelerated price disclosure was introduced in 2007 it has delivered billions of dollars in savings. This is something Labor were committed to in government, not just for the sake of getting savings themselves but for what we were able to do with them. These savings enabled the Labor government to list more medicines more quickly, and that is precisely what this government should be committing to do in introducing this bill. It was always our intention under this bill to invest the savings back into new medicines under the PBS. During Labor's two terms in government we listed roughly $6 billion worth of new medicines and extended the listings of others.
I am concerned that this government will not use the savings delivered through simplified price disclosure to put resources back into the PBS or into the health budget. To date, this government has not been the one the Australian public was promised, and there have been secrecy and cuts, especially in health. Despite promising not to cut any funds from health, the minister has confirmed that funds will be cut to honour the coalition's election promises. The government should not use accelerated price disclosure to prop up its own coffers; it should use it to the benefit of the health of our community.
We know there is a huge list of new medicines coming through the pipeline and that accelerated price disclosure is but one way governments can ensure that there are funds available for these new medicines to be listed as quickly as possible. I am conscious that PBAC deferred a decision, for example, on Kalydeco. This is a drug that is very important to hundreds of families across Australia. Australia is one of the few markets where Kalydeco is yet to be subsidised and I know this is causing a great deal of angst for many families with children born with the G551D genetic mutation of cystic fibrosis. The government should be absolutely assuring Australians that because of savings delivered through price disclosure it will prioritise the listing of important drugs like Kalydeco and others, when assessed by the PBAC, and keep these savings within the health portfolio.
Price disclosure does deliver savings and is one of the ways we can reduce the pressure on budgets. But it is critical that this money stays in the health portfolio and is invested in critical health infrastructure and the PBS and is also invested in medical research to ensure that facilities with young researchers are able to work on cures and new medicines for some of the world's most challenging diseases. We also need to ensure that these savings will be used to fund the new medicines coming through the PBAC process and to support other health priorities in this important portfolio. Given that this was a bill that in fact was signalled by Labor prior to the election, the opposition will of course be supporting the bill, but I will shortly be moving a second reading amendment.
I think it is interesting to note a couple of things about what happened in the context of the decisions and discussions about this particular bill. I note that when the minister introduced the bill he did so with some reluctance. And I understand why that is the case, because, having said one thing before the election—privately, to pharmacists, and going around the country and saying with a bit of a nod and a wink, 'Don't worry about that; we know how terrible the government's been, introducing this'—he now finds himself in exactly the same position that we did in government: that there are a substantial number of drugs ready for listing, ready to come down the PBAC pipeline, that he is going to have to find savings for. That is the reality. So it was with some irony that I noted that, during his contribution in the second reading debate, he said, 'I really don't want to do this; I don't want to do it, but Labor is making me.' What a ridiculous statement. He is in government; he can make a choice about that.
The reality is these savings are important. They are important for consumers, they are important for accountability on taxpayers' funds and they are important for ensuring that the government has the capacity to list new drugs. That is what the $800 million should be dedicated to, and I certainly will be watching very closely that that is exactly what this government does with this money. There are patients waiting, such as those who are waiting for the assessment of Kalydeco. It is over the government's new $20 million mark—as are most drugs, frankly, that are coming down the pipeline of the PBAC. Those drugs needs to be listed very quickly once they are assessed by the PBAC. So it is very important that the government actually makes that commitment to invest those savings back into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the listing of new drugs.
I also note, particularly, the campaign run by the Pharmacy Guild around these changes, and I understand, absolutely, the pressures that many pharmacists face and what is happening in terms of the business model of community pharmacy. But I also acknowledge, as incredibly important: taxpayers' money, and the pressures on the health system and the pharmaceutical benefits system. If we are to have a sustainable PBS, we actually have to deal with these issues. Price disclosure is not going away. It will continue to be a very important element of savings in the PBS system to make sure we have the capacity to list new medicines. It is a challenging area, and I understand that. I understand that the guild has lobbied many members during the election campaign over these changes. But again I note: the government have realised that they are facing the same pressures with the PBS that we were, and have introduced and supported this bill.
As I said at the start, the opposition will not be opposing this bill, but I move the following second reading amendment:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:
(1) the bill effects a policy announced by Labor in government and the revenue raised should be committed to remain within the health portfolio; and
(2) as new medicines become available the cost to government will only continue to increase and these savings will allow government to meet some of these increased costs without making cuts to other areas of the important portfolio of health.”
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Hall: I second the amendment.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (12:25): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013. I thank the member for Ballarat for her contribution, but I will just reflect on a little bit of history around price disclosure. It was something that was originally introduced by the Howard government in 2007. At that time it was a significant reform to place the PBS system—which is, arguably, the best system in the world—on a sustainable footing. It aims to ensure that the price at which government subsidises medicines more closely reflects the market price. This provides us with more funds to provide funding for additional medicines as they come up.
Under price disclosure, the drug companies are required to report data on sales to wholesalers, pharmacies and other suppliers. That data is used to calculate a weighted average price at which the PBS medicines are actually sold in the marketplace. The weighted average price is compared to the PBS price to determine whether a price reduction will apply. Under the current arrangements, price disclosure cycles take around 18 months to complete. The changes provided in this bill will shorten the period to 12 months.
The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to improve the operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by seeking to achieve better value for medicines that are subject to competition in the marketplace. We all know that, as a result of the financial mess we have been left by those opposite, these savings are going to be very important going forward.
The PBS provides Australians with timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary and cost-effective medicines. The price disclosure arrangements seek to ensure that the price at which the government subsidises multiple brand medicines more closely reflects market prices.
It is interesting that the member for Ballarat talked about Labor's decision to make this change, but, as usual with Labor's attempts at making any changes, it was just announced, with no consultation whatsoever with the industry. That is despite the clause in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement which requires the Commonwealth to consult in good faith on any budget initiative which has a significant and sustained impact on the viability of community pharmacies.
This simplified price disclosure will streamline the operation of the price disclosure arrangements and allow price reductions to occur sooner and more frequently after medicines become subject to market competition, and all medicines will be merged into one ongoing cycle rather than having several different cycles over the year. The length of each price disclosure cycle, as I said earlier, will be reduced, from 18 to 12 months. The first reduction will occur on 1 October 2014.
The simplified price disclosure measure was, as I just touched on, announced by the former government as part of its economic statement in August 2013. Based on their estimates, it will deliver some $835 million in budget savings. These savings have already been factored into the forward estimates for the PBS and the RPBS, and not implementing the simplified price disclosure policy would require the government to find savings in other programs. This simplified price disclosure will streamline the operation of the current price disclosure arrangements. That is one of the key things the coalition took to the electorate. It is about reducing red tape and regulation and making it easier for businesses to operate. The changes will also result in savings to consumers because they will pay less for some PBS medicines.
The simplified price disclosure will be achieved by amending the act and regulations, and the amendments to the act will expressly provide for 1 April or 1 October to be the price disclosure reduction days. Other days will continue to be prescribed by regulations to ensure that the existing PBS price for a medicine is not reduced by a price disclosure reduction unless the weighted average market price is 10 per cent less than the PBS price on the day the 10 per cent test is applied. The bill also contains an appropriate application provision to manage the existing disclosure cycles. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the amendment to the existing PBS price for a medicine not being reduced unless the price is less than 10 per cent. The amendment would move the relevant day from the end of the period, in respect of which the weighted average disclosed price for a listed brand is determined, to the next day. The practical effect of moving the 10 per cent test forward by one day is to preserve the 10 per cent buffer afforded in the existing arrangements to enable companies to respond to market forces.
Prior to the election, the Minister for Health said that the coalition would have liked to have consulted with the pharmacy industry rather than it being just dropped on them with no consultation. But, as we are now in government and fully understand the true extent of the mess and shambles that those opposite have left us, we need to continue to pursue a direction that will assist us to deliver a sustainable PBS into the future and to provide funding for new medicines that are coming on. I thank the Minister for Health for the time he took last week to come to my electorate of Forde and meet with some of my local pharmacists and hear their concerns.
One of the issues with these changes is that it does not take into account in any way the changes that have occurred to the business model for our community pharmacists. It does not take into account the fact that, for some of our community pharmacists, rents have increased by 40 per cent over the past few years. There is no compensation for pharmacists for the loss of expensive medicines that are past their use-by date. One of our local community pharmacies, the local Amcal pharmacist in the Logan Hyperdome, is doing a tremendous amount of work with our local community to try to prevent people from getting ill in the first place. They charge just $20 for a health assessment which for some people could take several hours to complete.
Our pharmacists are keen to work on preventative health measures because they fully understand that preventative health is one of the best ways to achieve significant savings in our health budget costs and it provides enormous cost benefits for the community and the health system. Our constituents highly value their local pharmacies not only for the advice and the supply of medications but for blood pressure checks and many other things that our constituents go into their pharmacies for. Sometimes they go in just for a chat because of the relationship that they have built up with the pharmacist over many, many years. I was heartened with the comments made by the Minister for Health that we will continue to work with our community pharmacies to see how we can utilise their skills, talents and capabilities, not only to allow them to continue to build and grow their businesses but also to use those skills to provide additional services that can further help our local communities.
As I touched on earlier, we are in this position because we face a situation where those opposite have left a legacy of debt and deficit. The coalition are seeking to clean up the mess that they have left. In contrast to those opposite, we will work with our community organisations, we will work with our community pharmacies, to ensure that we continue to support them and we will work with them to make the changes that we need to ensure that our pharmaceutical benefits system, and our health system more broadly, is sustainable for the long-term future of everybody in this country.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (12:36): I rise in support of the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 and the second reading amendment. The bill seeks to implement changes that Labor announced in August this year to reduce the price disclosure cycle within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 18 months to 12 months. This means that the price the government pays for PBS listed medicines will be discounted at least six months sooner than under the current system, and this translates into projected savings of around $835 million over the next three years. This is vital if we are to have a well-funded health system, because every dollar that we can save in this area can be spent on the broader health costs. We know that health costs are increasing and they are increasing faster than other costs in the economy. That is why it is vital that we take this action.
The savings that accrue through this bill are not just limited to the government. The price at the counter for some medicines will also come down, meaning a direct savings for consumers as well. In my electorate of Charlton this is vital because there are a lot of consumers who spend a lot of money on medicine. Labor sought to implement this change to provide better value for money for all Australians by improving the efficiency and sustainability of the PBS. Seniors, people with disability and people living with acute and chronic conditions depend on the responsible management of the PBS to ensure ongoing access to essential and affordable medicines.
Labor support this bill because it makes sense. We support the second reading amendment. It makes sense to seek the best value for taxpayer investment. It makes sense because these savings that will be made will not contribute to a reduction in supply or a reduction in access or a reduction in services. It makes sense because the reduction in the amount that the government pays for a PBS listed medicine will not contribute to an increased co-payment for consumers at the counter. It makes sense because the taxpayer will simply be paying less for exactly the same outcome.
As I have said before, this bill is important because it will save money that can be reinvested in the PBS to increase the number of listed medicines. I note that the Minister for Health's second reading speech to the House on this acknowledged that the projected savings from the bill are already factored into the forward estimates for the PBS and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I commend the minister's promise that these savings 'will assist the listing of new and innovative high-cost medicines on the PBS'. Labor agrees with the Minister for Health that savings from this bill need to be reinvested in the PBS and not redirected into government coffers. I can assure the minister that Labor will be watching with interest to see exactly what he does with these savings and we will hold him to account for this commitment. Unfortunately, I do not have much faith because already this government's track record on health leaves much to be desired.
Labor, on the other hand, had a proud record in government in investing in health care. It is a legacy that we are very proud of. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government invested more in health care than any other government. Under Labor, bulk-billing rates for GP services reached historic highs and visits to GPs were 82 per cent bulk-billed. When the Prime Minister was health minister, this figure was only 67 per cent. Labor's record on health is in stark contrast to the approach of the coalition. When the Prime Minister was health minister during the Howard government, he cut $1 billion from hospital funding. Just three months into the new government, we are already seeing significant cuts to the health budget, despite the coalition repeatedly promising before the election that the health budget would not be cut.
On 22 August, the Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, declared: 'What we intend to do is maintain existing levels of health funding.' Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be another broken promise. The coalition's shameful cuts already include: abolishing the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council, which has been providing advice to governments for nearly 50 years—the former Liberal member of parliament Dr Mal Washer, who is held in very high repute on both sides of this chamber, described this decision as 'a devastating blow', and this is despite the fact that the Prime Minister sent a letter to the council acknowledging their fine effort; abolishing the expert panel on infant formula, despite Australia's commitment to the World Health Organization code on this; and backflipping on their commitment that they will not close any Medicare Locals, despite a pledge during the election campaign that they would not go through this important program, but we are already seeing some really disturbing signs.
The chief of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Alison Verhoeven, has said that the government's review of the Medicare Local network 'is leaving patients, families and health service staff in limbo'. This is very concerning. The GP Access After Hours service is also an important part of the healthcare system that I am quite worried about. It is part of the Hunter Medicare Local in my area and provides a really valuable contribution to health care in the Hunter region. It is absolutely shameful that these services are now under threat from the coalition.
As an aside, my mother-in-law had reason to use the GP Access After Hours service only a few days ago at Belmont Hospital, in my good friend the member for Shortland's electorate.
Ms Hall: A great hospital.
Mr CONROY: A great hospital and a great service. She made a phone call and within 15 minutes on a busy Tuesday night she was seeing a GP. These are services that are at risk if the coalition break their commitments around healthcare funding that this bill goes to. Unfortunately, the cuts that we are already seeing directly contradict the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment. This is a clear example yet again of the government saying one thing in opposition and doing exactly the opposite in government.
It should come as no surprise to people who have seen the coalition government's performance in health in other areas. They are a party that opposed Medibank when Prime Minister Whitlam introduced it. They are a party that opposed Medicare when the Hawke-Keating government reintroduced it. In fact, as recently as 1993 they took to an election the position of abolishing Medicare. We have also seen very recently state Liberal governments taking the axe to health care. For example, the O'Farrell Liberal government in New South Wales has cut almost $3 billion in health funding, decimating health services across New South Wales. This is the standard practice of the Liberal government and I am fearful as to what will happen out of the government's commission of audit.
I will comment on the O'Farrell government a bit longer. This is a government that has cut health to the bone. Even when it made commitments to fund hospitals appropriately, it failed. My wife is an anaesthetic nurse and they fought very hard to get improved patient-to-nurse ratios in their hospitals. Even when they won that through the industrial award process, the government has still been incredibly tardy in actually delivering on that commitment. I fear that this could be replicated in the federal Liberal government's approach to health care.
I would like to note that the Minister for Health has failed to guarantee that cuts will not be made to Medicare Locals, cancer centres or medical research, and it is apparent that some cuts to the PBS are now also being considered. As well as these initial cuts, it has also been revealed that hundreds of Department of Health staff have been relocated to a 'business service centre' as of 1 December while they wait for projects to be identified as priorities by the Minister for Health. This is a complete waste of resources and is of great concern.
This government's commitment to health care can also be seriously questioned on the basis that the fundamentally important areas of mental health and science no longer have dedicated ministers. I applaud the efforts of previous ministers for mental health, such as the member for Port Adelaide, who did sterling work in the last government.
In my own area of the Hunter region, health care and funding for hospitals is of vital importance. The John Hunter Hospital, which is the only trauma hospital between Sydney and Brisbane, is located in my electorate. Hunter New England Health is the largest employer in the area and Labor invested nearly $50 million in the Hunter Medical Research Institute, which is doing great work in the Hunter area—teaming up with John Hunter Hospital and the University of Newcastle. In Charlton, Labor invested $2½ million in clinical skills training at the John Hunter Hospital, as well as $2.5 million in the GP superclinic at Morisset—which, despite the campaign being run by the Minister for Health, has been open for many years and is doing great work down in the Morisset-Southlakes area. In fact I am told that the GP superclinic down there sees more patients per day than the emergency department of Wyong Hospital, which is a quite significant nearby hospital. There was also $850,000 in funding provided for primary care infrastructure for GPs.
However, there remain significant health challenges in the Hunter. A recent National Health Performance Authority report revealed that 70 per cent of adults in the Hunter region are now overweight or obese—the second highest rate in New South Wales. A recent report by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation indicates that 44 per cent of Hunter residents have a medical condition, disease, impairment or disability that has been diagnosed by a doctor or health professional and has lasted for more than six months.
So reforms to the PBS, as embodied in this bill, are very important. What is vital is that the savings which accrue from this change are reinvested in the health portfolio, because areas like the Hunter Valley desperately need additional health funding. In Charlton alone, there are nearly 8,000 people with diabetes. According to Diabetes Australia, there are an estimated 14,000 people with prediabetes and at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the next 5 years. The electorate of Charlton has a combination of a significant population over the age of 60 and new residential areas that will see an increase in young families. All of these areas and all of these people are vulnerable to any cuts in health funding. That is why it is vital that the savings from the measures in this bill are reinvested in health.
I am proud to be a Labor member of parliament. We are the party of Medicare, we are the party of Medicare Locals and we are the party of the PBS. I am really proud of our record in government and I am really committed, along with the rest of the Hunter team and the rest of the Labor team, to hold the government to account over the reinvestment of the savings associated with this bill. I commend the bill to the House along with the amendment we have moved. It is just so important that we keep fighting for adequate health funding.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:48): I commend the member for Charlton on his fine contribution to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 and for highlighting all the important issues in health—particularly the important issues in the Hunter region, part of which is in my electorate of Shortland. We share similar concerns about health in our area and are making sure that the people of our region get the health services they deserve.
I will start by acknowledging the achievements of the last government in the area of health. In government, Labor changed the face of health by implementing the National Health Reform Agreement, which was designed to put $20 billion into hospitals over 10 years. Labor has a proud record in health. We trained more doctors and nurses. We introduced the Dental Health Reform Package. I mention here that the minister opposed the ending of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I am wondering whether, now that he is government, he wants to re-introduce that scheme. I am asking him to make a commitment to the Dental Health Reform Package, because it is a package that is set to give Australians a level of certainty about the delivery of dental health services that we never had under the Howard government.
We have established Medicare Locals and they have done phenomenal work. In my area, I am covered by two Medicare Locals—the Central Coast Medicare Local and the Hunter Medicare Local. They are at the forefront of everything that happens in the health area in their respective regions. During the recent bushfires in my electorate, the Medicare Local was at the forefront of providing support and help to people who had been isolated and could not return to their homes.
Under Labor, we had a record bulk-billing rate. It was up over 80 per cent. During the Howard years, under 60 per cent of services in the Shortland electorate—an older electorate, an electorate with a fairly low income base—were being bulk billed. As well as the dental reform package I mentioned, Labor introduced the Grow Up Smiling program, a fantastic program. It means that young kids will have their dental health looked after from the time they are two until they are teenagers. Once again, I call on the minister to give us a promise that he will not walk away from that program.
As I mentioned, there are now more GPs and nurses in training than there were under the Howard government. The superclinics, which my colleague the member for Charlton mentioned, have been really well accepted in many areas. Those on the other side like to pull out the odd example of where they are not up and running, but in most areas they are up and running and are greatly appreciated by the local community. We had a package of $3.7 billion for aged care services, and now we do not even have a minister for aged care. And the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing has had ageing taken out of it, so now it is only the health committee. To me, that shows that this government has no real long-term commitment to some very important health areas.
When Labor came to power in 2007 we were faced with a health system that was in crisis. That was highlighted in The blame game—a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, which made 29 recommendations and was the blueprint for Labor's reform agenda. I will not go through all the recommendations, but the essence of them was that Australia needed to develop a national health agenda.
Mr Tudge: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene so I can ask the member a question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Does the honourable member accept the intervention?
Ms HALL: I am tempted to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I need to get through a lot of information. I would be comfortable accepting his question but in this case I would prefer to continue with my contribution to the debate. The first recommendation of The blame game was to develop and adopt a national health agenda and identify policies, planning principles and initiatives. There were 29 recommendations in this report, and most of them have been implemented. But this government should remember that first recommendation, in particular. What is their policy in the area of health? What is their agenda? What do they intend to do? So far, all I have seen have been cuts, cuts and more cuts. I think that may be the health agenda of this Abbott government. I know that at an earlier time the Prime Minister was health minister, and I had always questioned his commitment to health. Now we have a health minister that is only about cuts. He says one thing before the election, particularly in relation to the legislation now before the House, and another thing after the election.
There was an enormous investment in health in the Shortland electorate under the previous government. Through the Primary Care Infrastructure Grants program we invested $500,000 in the Jewells Medical Centre, $150,000 in the Charlestown Family Medical Service, $50,000 in the Lake Macquarie Medical Centre in Belmont, $265,050 in the Wallarah Bay Medical Centre and $150,000 in Aardmann Medical Services, Windale. These grants assisted many health care centres, which in turn have provided great support to local communities. I mentioned earlier the Hunter Medicare Local. It employs 125 front-line healthcare staff and has spent $12.94 million in establishment and operational funding and $11.5 million to support the provision of local face-to-face after-hours primary healthcare services—and that is the GP Access that the member for Charlton talked about. That service has been well utilised by families throughout the Hunter for many years. It is a fantastic service. The Hunter Urban Division of General Practice introduced it, and that was groundbreaking. It is a service that I think is the envy of every area health service in Australia.
There has been money to raise awareness through eHealth, and there has been a great deal of investment in Medicare Locals both in the Hunter and on the Central Coast. Under the Australian General Practice Training Program there have been eight new GP places based at the Glover Street Medical Service in Belmont, the After Hours Medical Service in Charlestown, Aardmann Medical Services in Windale, the Charlestown Family Medical Service and the Smith Street Medical Service. At Belmont hospital, $18.95 million has been invested in hospital services, with subacute beds funding providing 16 rehab beds, and another $380,000 has gone towards providing support for elective surgery services. These are fantastic investments in health in my local area—investments that the Howard government did not make. They ignored areas like Shortland. We had a chronic shortage of GPs, we had very low bulk-billing rates and we had people having to decide whether or not they could afford to get the medicines they were prescribed, even with the strong PBS system that we have in place.
What is the vision for health of the current Minister for Health and the government? I cannot see their vision. I see a government that is keen to cut, is keen to save money; a government that has ripped $100 million out of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital and abolished the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council. As my colleague has already mentioned, Dr Mal Washer, a former member of this House, is absolutely horrified that the government has so little insight that it does not understand the important role that this council played in the delivery of health services and ensuring good health care for Australians. What is happening with the wonderful Medicare Locals that I mentioned? They were going, and then the government were keeping them, and now they cannot quite make up their mind whether or not the Medicare Locals will stay. In regard to the abolition of the expert panel on the marketing of infant formula, I refer back to another report of the then Standing Committee on Health and Ageing that we undertook in the 41st Parliament. As a result of that report, Breast is best, it was recommended that we really had to make sure that we had an expert panel to look at the marketing of infant formula. They are turning back the clock.
When we come to this particular piece of legislation, first I will say that the PBS has served Australia well since 1948. It is the envy of the world. It is a great system. It delivers subsidised medicines to all Australians. If a medicine is to be listed, then the drug companies have to justify the listing of that medication. When it finally goes onto the market, all Australians know that it is a safe medicine and that it is being delivered to them at a cheap price. This particular piece of legislation will reduce the amount of time taken by the government to pay reduced prices for certain drugs. The price disclosure arrangements ensure that the amount the government pays to subsidise drugs reflects the market price of the drugs, and there are several price disclosure cycles within one year.
I have met with community pharmacies within my electorate. I acknowledge the concerns that they have expressed, and I intend to work very closely with them. I also acknowledge the fact that before the election the minister ran a scare campaign on this particular issue. He was arguing that this should not take place. After the election, it is one of the first pieces of legislation that we are considering within the parliament. It is expected to save $835 million over three years. Once again, we are hearing about the savings, we are hearing about the cuts, but we are not hearing about any positive initiatives that this government has in the area of health. I think the minister promised $35 million for research into type I diabetes, but there is nothing on the table after the election. In the summing up on this legislation, I would like the minister to give an absolute guarantee to this House that the savings that this legislation will deliver to the government will be reinvested back into the Health portfolio. Australians demand nothing less. This is about health care, this is about ensuring that Australians can get cheaper drugs, and it is about maintaining our wonderful health care system rather than just cut, cut, cut as this government seems intent on doing.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:03): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 and the amendments moved by the shadow minister for Health. The bill before the House makes changes to the National Health Act 1953 to streamline the operations of the current price disclosure arrangements within the operation of the PBS. This measure is about ensuring that governments, who set the wholesale price for PBS listed medications, are able to factor in discounts given to pharmacies from pharmaceutical companies and, therefore, are able to adjust this wholesale price to reflect the true aggregate market price in a more timely fashion. In particular, the bill reduces the length of time of price disclosure to government by pharmaceutical companies from 18 to 12 months, allowing the government to change the wholesale price it sets to reflect the market price more quickly. The bill also ensure that there is only one ongoing price disclosure cycle, as opposed to the current arrangement of having three cycles per year. In addition, the bill also decreases the number of price reduction days from three to two and retains the current arrangements which prevent the government reducing the price of a medication on the PBS unless the weighted average price is at least 10 per cent lower than the PBS price. This measure is important, and it does provide value for consumers, for taxpayers and, indeed, for government.
This bill implements a change that the former Labor government announced in August this year. I must say that, at the time when Labor announced this policy, we heard veiled criticism from the opposition about this measure. In particular, there were comments made suggesting that this change was being made too quickly and that it should not be implemented because it changed the formal community pharmacy agreement. However, now they are in government, the coalition have quickly changed their tune, wasting no time implementing Labor's announcement though this legislation. Indeed, we are in the third sitting week of the new parliament, and it seems now that the coalition government is very keen to adopt Labor's policy as quickly as possible.
I do recognise that some stakeholders, in particular community pharmacies, are concerned by this measure. I would like to put on the record the great job that community pharmacies do around the country and, indeed, in my electorate. But this is an important saving measure for government. It provides over $830 million over four years, not to mention savings for consumers as well. It is Labor's view that these saving are important and that this provides an incredibly good opportunity to reinvest them back into the health care system. That is why we have moved the amendment that savings made through the PBS system go back into health. This amendment will ensure that the tradition started under the previous Labor government whereby savings made as a result of price disclosure are reinvested back into health will continue. Indeed, the previous Labor government invested $1.9 billion of savings from price disclosure to make investments in a range of important infrastructure initiatives in the health area, including the integrated cancer centres.
We are also moving this amendment to protect the Commonwealth's investment in health, because it is currently under threat from the new government. The Minister for Health has not really been able to articulate any coherent vision for his portfolio, other than to find savings for the Prime Minister and to sneak through cuts to health services and programs.
Every Australian should be concerned about what the government intends to do in the health area. As we know, despite promising not to touch money in the health area, it has already axed a number of key projects and programs and flagged more cuts. This is another example—one of many examples we are now seeing—where this government says one thing before an election and does something else after the election.
We know they have ripped $100 million out of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, which provides over 90 per cent of the state's specialist eye surgery. It is a cruel blow to patients and the hospital, which has been providing services to Victorians for over 150 years.
The government has abolished the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council, a body that has existed for almost 50 years and has been giving advice to governments since the Menzies government. It has abolished the expert panel on the marketing of infant formula because this government seems uninterested in getting accurate information about significant health policy. It has indicated $35 million of cuts for the Diabetes Research Foundation and now is providing clear evidence that it will backflip and cut Medicare Locals.
I am particularly concerned about the agenda to cut Medicare Locals. This would be a significant backwards step—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Member for Kingston, the member for Aston is seeking the call.
Ms RISHWORTH: They obviously do not want to hear about their cuts.
Mr Tudge: Deputy Speaker, I am just wondering if the shadow parliamentary secretary for health would be able to comment on why they cut $107 million from the Victorian health budget retrospectively in 2012.
Ms RISHWORTH: I am not willing to take that question. I am talking about the cuts that your government is currently making. Do not try and make this into some ridiculous thing. We invested money into health. Let me continue talking about the cuts that you have made and particularly my concern about Medicare Locals.
I was very pleased to attend the recent AGM of the Southern Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Island Medicare Local. It is a great example of what Medicare Locals are achieving round the country. The Southern Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Island Medicare Local has offered more than 20,000 clinical services in the last year. I would just like to run through some of these figures—and I am very pleased that the Minister for Health is in the chamber now, because he can pay attention to the great job that the Southern Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Island Medicare Local is doing. Of those 20,000 clinical services, 7,829 occasions of service were in mental health and 893 individuals were assessed through the headspace program. Child immunisation rates have been maintained at 90 per cent in the region, thanks to the work of the Medicare Local office. The Medicare Local has supported 40 general practitioners to achieve accreditation, increasing the availability of health services to people in southern Adelaide. It has provided 551 services under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health program.
Over 800 patients were attended to in one year in nursing homes, ensuring that people were prevented from going into hospital. This is a particularly important element of the Medicare Locals which should not be ignored: the role that they play in ensuring that patients do not end up in hospital. This is good for individual patients, and it is also incredibly important for the costs of the hospital system. This is important primary health care.
I am also pleased that the Minister for Health is in the chamber now, because, hopefully, he can answer my question. I have written to him about whether or not he will honour the $15 million to the neonatal unit at the Flinders Medical Centre. I wrote to him close to two months ago. I have not had a response from the Minister for Health yet about whether or not that $15 million will be honoured. The neonatal unit is an incredibly important unit in the Flinders Medical Centre. It provides services for not just the local area but right across South Australia. Indeed, when I visited the hospital, it was providing services to country Victorians as well. It is a really important service that allows people who have unfortunately had a premature baby to spend time with their baby and get the best possible medical attention, and there is also space for families to ensure that that connection continues. So it is really, really concerning that I have not had an answer yet from the Minister for Health, and I really hope that this funding does not end up being ripped away in the same way that the government has ripped away the $100 million from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
But, of course, it is not just the things that they have already cut; the government have flagged that they will cut or abolish many, many things. Their 'commission of cuts' is already affecting agencies and their abilities to deliver vital programs. Who would have thought that the government's commission of cuts would look at targeting funding to promote organ and tissue donation? But hundreds of community groups are now being left in the dark about whether their funding applications will be honoured—especially with DonateLife Week coming up in February. It is concerning that this funding has been frozen, and there seems to be absolutely no answer about what will happen and when this money will be released.
Money in Health Workforce Australia has also been frozen. This will affect students because the money, especially as part of the clinical placements program, goes towards supporting universities and health services to provide clinical placements for students. There is no doubt that we need to make sure we are providing that opportunity for placements for students to get the experience so that they can enter our workforce. Developing our health workforce is one of the critical challenges into the future. The doctors, the nurses and the allied health workers are all critically important. Freezing money for clinical placements is very concerning as we approach the new academic year. How will we be able to do this?
As I stated earlier, there are real concerns about cuts in the Health portfolio. Only the Labor Party has a good track record in investing in and reforming our healthcare sector. That is why we continued to invest in health care. That is why the amendment that the opposition has put forward is so critically important. It ensures that the money that is part of this saving cannot be cut and put somewhere else or be stashed in the government coffers. It says that it is important that it is reinvested into health and ensures that we can slow the cuts that continue to come from this government. Hopefully the reinvestment of this money, through the opposition's amendment, will ensure that the government will continue to spend in Health. I commend the opposition's amendment to the House and hope that the House adopts it.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:15): I too rise to support the amendment that is before us. It is so critically important that the savings that are made through this proposal stay in the Health portfolio. This bill, as we have heard from previous speakers, implements a Labor announcement—a change that we put forward last August—to reduce the time for price disclosure from 18 months to 12 months. This bill therefore reduces the time between when a company advises the price reduction of a drug and when the government starts to pay the reduced amount. Knowing that pharmacies are businesses and that changing the business culture may take some time, Labor, when in government, entered into a new agreement with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to provide extra funding to the guild to pursue specific programs, called Support Patient Services. Having been to speak to a number of our own pharmacies in Bendigo, I know they have embraced the change in the way price disclosure works and they are working actively to provide better support for their patients. They, like us, believe there is more we need to do in the area of primary care and they see they have a role to play in rebuilding their culture, not just as a supermarket to dispense drugs but in education to ensure we have better quality health care within our communities. I would like to mention UFS pharmacies, and there are five of them within the electorate. It may come as a surprise but they are a not-for-profit, membership-based organisation that delivers a wide range of pharmacy, health and optical products and services. When I met with them about this issue, they said it was critical that they were not undercut by what they called the MacDonald's of the industry—chemist supermarkets with their bright yellow signs.
As part of these reforms, $1.9 billion will be saved and that saving should stay in the health budget. The key question for the government now is: where will these savings go? In government Labor was committed to making sure that these stayed in the Health portfolio and that we got better outcomes in the Health portfolio. In my own electorate of Bendigo, Labor invested millions in health care. In the time that I have I want to give a few examples. The Bendigo and District Aboriginal Coop received $7.5 million; $2.4 million to the Heathcote Primary Care Clinic; $5 million for the Bendigo Primary Healthcare Centre, a GP Super clinic; and $6.79 million for the Kyneton Hospital project. These are just a few of the funding projects, but these involved capital works and are critical for meeting the health care needs in my electorate. Many in the House would acknowledge that in regional electorates, like mine, health care is critical. We have small towns and villages with great distances between where people live and where their health services are.
Where will the coalition deliver these new savings? It is critical that we support the amendment because those opposite do not have a good track record when it comes to investing in health. We just have to look at what previous Liberal government have done at the state and federal level. With Tony Abbott as the health minister in the Howard government, we saw bulk billing rates dip as low as 67 per cent in the Bendigo electorate and entire towns were without a bulk billing doctor. More than a billion dollars were cut from hospitals over five years. That is what happened the last time the coalition was in government. We are moving this amendment today to ensure it does not happen again. At the state level the Liberals have made savage cuts to health. They have put up a bit of a smoke screen around it, but it is there. The Bendigo hospital and the Bendigo health network have copped a massive cut of $11 million over the last two budgets. How can you tackle waiting lists? How can you meet the primary healthcare needs of a community if you cut $11 million out of the operating budget?
As a result of these cuts we have seen a loss of staff. Rather than investing in the employment of staff in areas like intensive care or emergency departments, we are seeing a reduction. There have also been cuts at the state level to the women's health services, including Women's Health Loddon Mallee. Cuts of 10 per cent are a lot for a not-for-profit organisation to lose. There have been cuts of between 20 and 30 per cent of their operating budgets to our community health services which work in partnership with their community to deliver the primary health care in areas that others do not want to touch because they are not so sexy at the moment. Included in my electorate is Bendigo Community Health, Castlemaine and District Community Health and Cobaw Health. The reason I raise these examples is to highlight the track record of the Liberal and National Parties when they get into government. Despite their constant promises before the election that there would be no cuts to health, the cuts have begun—$100 million from the Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, the abolition of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia and a backflip on the promise not to close any Medicare Locals.
I know within my region how critical Medicare Locals are in linking up our small towns to ensure that across the Loddon Mallee that we have a network of funding. A lot of funding is allocated from different areas for health services and it is important that services are coordinated so that we are not constantly duplicating the delivery of health services. I understand the importance of Medicare Locals to rural regions to be that link between our private clinics, our public clinics, our community health and our hospitals.
Just in case the government are not sure and do not have any ideas about how they can invest this vital funding in health care, particularly in my electorate, I have a few ideas that I would like to put out there. I mentioned earlier Castlemaine District Community Health. Castlemaine is a growing area that is in need of capital funding to co-locate all of its services. Perhaps the minister would like to fund this project. Cobaw Community Health received a grant from the previous government to co-locate with the hospital, but now it would like to bring all its services together, again delivering better outcomes in primary health care—that one-stop shop.
Another idea is to work with Bendigo Health on how to stop people ending up in the emergency room. Too often in the health debate we focus on what happens in the emergency room and not on how we stop people ending up in the emergency room. Again, I believe that pharmacies have a role to play, moving from a focus on just dispensing drugs and starting to get into the educational field. Making sure we engage with our communities and our patients on primary health care is a very important role that pharmacists can move into. That is why it is so critical that every dollar saved by price disclosure stays within the Health portfolio and within the PBS if at all possible.
We do need to ask the question: what is next? Australians need to know whether further funding cuts will be proposed by the government and where they will attack. Let us hope they will not be like their state colleagues and go directly after primary health care. We need certainty in this area and a commitment that funding will continue. I believe, as do Labor and the people in my electorate, that we need a very strong public health system that ensures that everybody receives the universal care that they deserve. Health care is central to continuing to strengthen regional communities to ensure that everybody has access to decent health care and is able to live the best life that they can. My electorate has a strong network of small hospitals, a major hospital and GP superclinics, and I would be more than happy to sit down with the minister to talk about how this funding helps them meet their primary healthcare needs.
As I said at the start, it is so important that once this bill goes through the funding stays within the Health portfolio. Labor are committed to the PBS and to ensuring that Australians get value for money, and we are committed to ensuring that every health dollar remains in the budget. I urge the new government to support our amendment and to send a loud and clear message to the community, including the people in my electorate, that they too agree that we need to keep investing in our health care and that the dollars will continue to flow.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (13:25): I thank the previous speaker and indeed all the speakers who have contributed to this debate. Let me firstly respond to the amendment moved by the shadow minister for health. The government will not be supporting the amendment, because it is clearly a political stunt.
For the PBS to continue to provide Australians with reliable, timely and affordable access to medicines, the scheme needs to be well managed. The viability of the medicines industry, pharmacies and other suppliers in Australia is absolutely paramount to the future of our country. The National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 aims to improve the operation of PBS pricing policy. The proposed changes would reduce complexity in administering price disclosure and increase its effectiveness by allowing price reductions to occur sooner, and indeed more frequently.
The aim of the changes is not to increase the magnitude of price reductions or to reduce prices below the level they would have reached under the current process; it is simply to allow PBS prices to be adjusted more quickly. Price disclosure is an established part of supplying and dispensing medicines under the PBS. Adopting a more uniform and responsive approach under simplified price disclosure would deliver savings for consumers via decreased prescription costs, would reduce PBS expenditure for taxpayers and would assist with listing of new medicines.
The PBS relies on the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacies to provide high-quality products and professional services for medicines. I acknowledge that some sectors have concerns regarding the changes. However, due to the fiscal circumstances inherited by this government, I regret to say that these changes need to proceed.
While consultation prior to the announcement of the change by the former government may have been limited, this government intends to engage with business in a very different way. We will start as we mean to continue, with consultation regarding implementation so that those affected are well informed on the changes.
Sound pricing arrangements are vital to the sustainability of the PBS. These changes would help to ensure that the government does not pay higher prices than it should otherwise pay for PBS medicines. They will also provide greater confidence that multiple-brand medicines are delivering value for money for the PBS.
I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (13:29): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUTLER ( Port Adelaide ) ( 13:30 ): I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I think that it is fair to say that as a first legislative outing on environmental protection by the new Minister for the Environment it would be generous to call this a modest piece of legislation. Of course the new minister is already out there on climate change, reversing course on a range of different forms of positive actions to improve our natural environment, most notably today to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in spite of increasing amounts of evidence about the way in which that initiative will clean up our energy supply while also returning money to the budget. I noticed that the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos, indicated today that he was willing to relook at the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, so perhaps the new minister is to be overruled by the Assistant Treasurer and the new government will see some sense on the environmental protection benefits of that initiative.
But this is the new minister's first outing in the traditional environmental protection space. I think it is fair to say, given the platform that the Liberal Party took to the community before the election around environmental protection, that this new minister will not trouble the Hansard reporters too much because it is a platform that is wafer thin. It is a wafer-thin platform. Much of it is conducted in reverse gear.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: As the member for Kooyong well knows, in the quieter moments of reflection that he has with himself, this is a platform conducted in reverse gear. The government are reversing protections around our marine environment, the third great area of environmental protection—our oceans. The government are, remarkably, seeking to reverse a World Heritage listing of around 100,000 hectares of some of the most beautiful forests in the world, located here in Australia in Tasmania. We are still trying to find a precedent for a nation actually reversing a World Heritage listing. But we read again in the paper today, in spite of opposition from the forestry industry in Tasmania, that this government still intends to seek a reversal of the World Heritage listing of 100,000 hectares of forests in Tasmania.
They have taken money from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that was about 110 years in the making. Again, they are in reverse gear. Scandalously, this government want to hand over their crucial protection powers over matters of national environmental significance to state governments with environmental protection records like that of Campbell Newman's. This is a platform overwhelmingly conducted in reverse gear.
But I will say that in a couple of limited areas, to their credit, the Liberal Party and this minister have decided to piggyback on some of the excellent work done by my predecessor, then Minister Tony Burke, now Manager of Opposition Business. I will give a couple of examples of this, and one of them is contained in this bill.
Particularly I was very pleased, as I think everyone on this side of the chamber was, that the new minister announced that they would extend the extraordinary work that we were able to do with the Queensland government, with Queensland landowners and with Queensland environment groups around the reef protection plan—a $200 million investment in not only Australia's greatest environmental asset but perhaps one of the world's greatest environmental assets to partner with landowners in the canegrowing and cattle industries to start to bring down the amount of agricultural run-off, particularly nitrogen run-off, from the land into the reef waters that is causing the reef so much damage. It is particularly causing the crown-of-thorns starfish to spawn. They are particularly rapacious around coral, causing around 42 per cent of all damage to the coral reef. So I am very pleased this excellent work that our government was able to do in partnership with the Queensland government and local landowners along the coast of Far North Queensland was continued by this new minister.
I am also, relevantly for this bill, very pleased that this new minister decided to extend and piggyback on the work that was undertaken by former Minister Burke, in partnership with traditional owners and local Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland, to protect Australia's and particularly Queensland's turtle and dugong populations. Schedule 2 of this bill reflects part of the commitment that the new minister made to piggyback on the work of former Minister Burke.
It is well known to some members in this House just how special the turtle and dugong populations in Far North Queensland are in our natural environment. Dugongs have an interesting history. It is rumoured that Christopher Columbus mistook a dugong for a mermaid. It was long thought that particularly shapely and attractive dugongs were mistaken for mermaids as people hundreds of years ago plied the oceans to discover new lands. So dugongs have a particular history. But the six species of turtle that are part of Australia's natural environment are particularly covered by this bill as well as dugongs. All of those six species which are particularly located in Far North Queensland are listed as either vulnerable or endangered under the EPBC Act, the act which is proposed to be amended by this bill. Dugongs and turtles are also listed as migratory species under the act. They are listed as marine species under the act. Also both categories are listed as protected under the marine parks act. So they are species which are subject to significant legislative protection in the environmental sphere. As I said, they are extraordinary, majestic species known to the communities, particularly the Indigenous communities but also more broadly, who have the very good fortune to live along the beautiful coast of Far North Queensland.
I had a relatively short duration as minister for the environment. I suspect that as long as the Commonwealth of Australia exists there will not be an environment minister who has as short a duration as I did. In that very short duration of a matter of weeks I spent some great time in Far North Queensland, from Townsville up to Cairns. I know the member for Leichhardt, who is in the chamber, is keen to talk on this bill through his experience in Far North Queensland. While there, I saw some of the wonderful work being done by landowners and small environmental organisations and by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, including in its turtle hospital in Townsville, which I visited. I was able to release a turtle that had been looked after by the hospital for about 12 months. Those species—the six species of turtle and also the dugongs—are a wonderful, majestic group of species, but they are very much populations under stress.
Raised with me when I was travelling in Far North Queensland—I am sure the member for Leichhardt has had this raised with him too—was the concern about nesting populations on Raine Island, which is the largest nesting location for green turtles in the world and one that is under very, very great pressure. Numbers are significantly down for a range of reasons. No-one can identify the major cause, but they are significantly down.
The former Labor government—under former Minister Burke and his extended, relative to mine, period as minister for environment—took strong action in concert with local Indigenous communities, who have been dealing with these turtle and dugong populations for many, many thousands of years. This work was targeted at helping to sustain the populations of the six species of turtles and the dugongs of Far North Queensland. Former Minister Burke invested around $5 million last year in a number of Indigenous-led programs that funded Indigenous ranger positions to implement the plan, providing employment to local Indigenous communities and tapping into the knowledge about the habits, strengths and weaknesses of these turtle and dugong populations that is passed down from generation to generation in those local Indigenous populations. I am very pleased, and give credit to the new minister and to the member for Leichhardt, who has advocated for this, that one of the elements of the new government's plan piggybacks on the investments we made on Indigenous ranger positions.
Also importantly, we provided funding to support, with traditional owners, the development of sea country management plans to ensure sustainable harvesting by local Indigenous communities of these turtle and dugong populations. Minister Burke pulled together a turtle and dugong task force to develop a legal framework that would underpin sustainable harvesting that would also deal with illegal hunting and poaching of turtles and dugongs, particularly some of the turtle populations. This is a very serious concern and I think is at the heart of why the member for Leichhardt has sought the introduction of this bill. That these majestic populations are at risk of being poached and illegally hunted is a very significant concern not only for communities in Far North Queensland but I think for most Australians. We see from reports, sometimes from hunters coming from outside Australia to target these populations, that often the turtles and dugongs die in very cruel and painful ways. Part of the work that we were doing through the task force was to ensure that Indigenous traditions and customs in relation to these populations were able to continue, where appropriate, but that we could deal with illegal hunting and poaching, which has been a cause of significant distress for the communities in Far North Queensland.
We in the Labor Party are strongly of the view that working with local communities is the most effective way to stamp out poaching and illegal hunting and to ensure that traditional practices in relation to turtles and dugongs are carried out in an appropriate way. This also allows us to tap into the local knowledge—the eyes and the ears—of locally Indigenous populations to trigger a response to illegal hunting and poaching wherever it comes from, when it happens. It is disappointing that the new government, though well motivated to protect these majestic species, has moved from the task force based approach, working with local communities, that we initiated last year to a more high-handed approach through the Australian Crime Commission, directed from Canberra rather than from the local communities themselves.
This bill incorporates one element of the dugong and turtle protection plan that was announced by the new minister during the election campaign. The plan piggybacks on the Labor Party's funding last year for Indigenous ranger positions, which is to be commended. This is a very successful program and I am very pleased to see the funding extended. But the $2 million to the Crime Commission, without any real local consultation, according to our reading of the local response, is something that could have been done significantly better.
Schedule 2 of the bill increases penalties for poaching or illegal hunting of the six turtle species and dugongs. According to the minister's second reading speech, it is his view, or it was put to him, that the crux of the problem around poaching and illegal hunting of these populations is that the level of the penalties in the legislation is inadequate. We remain unclear about the evidence for that. As far as we have been able to ascertain there is no record of these penalties ever being used. They have never been used at the existing level, so we remain unconvinced that this really is the crux of the problem. That the minister suggested that in his second reading speech indicates to us that the problem is more complex than that and that it lies elsewhere. Having said that, Labor will not oppose the passing of schedule 2 of the bill. I have already expressed the Labor Party's views about other elements of the Liberal Party's turtle and dugong protection plan.
However, the Labor Party does not support the provisions in schedule 1 of the bill. I foreshadow that I will be moving during the consideration-in-detail stage of this bill an amendment to omit schedule 1. We will support the bill without schedule 1 passing. The proposed amendments within schedule 1 look modest at first blush but, in our view, they go to the heart of the biodiversity conservation provisions of the EPBC Act. For that reason we cannot support them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Lalor Electorate: Housing
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): I am extremely concerned about the Australian tax office's draft ruling to increase the GST on mobile home parks. I am advised that my electorate of Lalor has approximately 620 mobile or demountable homes, with almost 950 permanent residents who will be adversely affected by this ruling. Earlier this week, I spoke about tenancy eviction and homelessness in my electorate. This draft ruling is another housing pressure that our community cannot afford.
My office has been inundated by local residents from various retirement villages who are concerned about the burden of having to find between $700 and $1,200 extra per year to pay the GST if it is applied and passed on. One constituent in particular, Bob from Ison village in Wyndham, is very worried about the impact this draft ruling could have on him and others like him, not only financially but also the undue stress it will cause.
I am aware that residents in three Lalor retirement villages are currently preparing petitions to the House on this matter. Mr Abbott promised during the election campaign that there would be no change to the GST, but now he is in government it feels like another promise is going to be broken.
I stand in the House today to oppose the increase in GST on moveable homes and implore the government to keep its promise and remove the worry this draft ruling is currently causing to the people in my electorate of Lalor.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:46): Last week I toured the site of Australia's first fully-integrated digital hospital. On track for completion in August next year, St Stephen's Hospital will attract new medical specialists to the Hinkler electorate and take pressure off the Hervey Bay public hospital. It will mean fewer patients will have to travel to the big cities to receive treatment. Cokram Construction project manager, Ian Coulburn, showed me around the impressive site, where approximately 65 per cent of the workers are local. Leanne Tones from Uniting Care Health is very proud of the 96-bed facility, and rightly so.
All medical records, X-ray and pathology results will be accessible to doctors and nurses anywhere in the hospital, whether at the bedside or at the nurses station. Medical devices such as blood pressure pumps will also be integrated. The technology will improve efficiency and enhance the experience of patients and clinicians. The hospital will include renal and oncology services. On that note, I welcome the health minister's decision earlier this week to list medicine for the treatment of certain types of cancer on the PBS. Also, the genetic tests for non-small cell lung cancer will be listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
While Bundaberg has long had a private hospital, the lack of a private hospital in Hervey Bay prior to 2006 was a limiting factor in both retaining and attracting professionals to the southern end of my electorate. Championed by local state and federal MPs,Ted Sorensen and Paul Neville, the $87.5 million project will have $47 million from the Health and Hospitals Fund by the time it is complete. I look forward to working with Uniting Care Health to make Hervey Bay one of the country's leading health hubs.
Parramatta Electorate: Human Rights
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:48): Last Saturday, I joined the young men and women from Amnesty International Parramatta outside Parramatta Town Hall for the Write for Rights event. They were collecting signatures to raise the profile of some people under terrible circumstances such as the Cambodian housing activist, Yorm Bopha, imprisoned on charges for peacefully protesting against forced evictions; Dr Tun Aung, a Burmese community leader sentenced to 17 years in prison; an Ethiopian journalist, Eskinder Nega, serving an 18-year prison sentence for terrorism, after criticising the government and supporting free speech.
This is a fine group of mainly young men and women. I congratulate Sabrina, Karamzo, Sampada, Pritha, Rima, Lauren—who is the community liaison person for Amnesty International Parramatta—Brian Amanda, Catherine, Esther and Bela. They were all out there collecting signatures to raise the plight of these people with the broader community. They are a great young group, who care about the plight of people around the world and are doing a great job in raising issues of human rights in the Parramatta electorate. I commend them for their work.
McPherson Electorate: Gold Coast Dyslexia Support Group
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:49): I wish to speak to a petition signed by more than 8,300 parents and teachers, from 14 dyslexia support groups around Australia who are affiliated with the Australian Dyslexia Association. They are concerned about the lack of recognition and assistance provided to students with dyslexia. This petition will be submitted to the petitions committee this afternoon.
Dyslexia is widespread in society and is often considered the forgotten learning disability in education. Many Australians are affected by dyslexia and struggle daily with its implications. In September this year, I met with Tanya Forbes, the founder of the Gold Coast Dyslexia Support Group and the principal petitioner. The focus of this group is to increase awareness, share information and provide support to parents, teachers, students and schools. At our meeting we discussed a number of issues, including research, early identification and effective literacy intervention for children identified 'at risk'.
In 2012, the Gold Coast Dyslexia Support Group established Robina State School, in my electorate of McPherson, as a pilot-friendly school for dyslexia, and it has been achieving wonderful results through a variety of accredited initiatives. It is hoped that in the future the Robina State School pilot can be used as a model for other schools. It is my understanding that the Minister for Education is committed to working in this area, and I will work closely with the minister to deliver a good outcome for people affected by dyslexia.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: State Emergency Service
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:50): On 29 November, I had the wonderful honour of attending the Randwick Botany state emergency service annual awards night, at which wonderful volunteers in our community were awarded for their services.
This year it was reported that 441 requests for assistance were made to the local SES, and a total of 10,708 volunteer hours were put into operational training and community service duties performed by those trusty volunteers in our community in the bright orange overalls. They dealt with a number of important incidents this year, including a tornado in Malabar, which damaged numerous houses and, unfortunately, which disturbed much asbestos in some of the old houses. They dealt with that with the local hazmat officials. They were also involved in local bushfires, particularly the recent bushfires in the Blue Mountains.
Many members received long services awards, including Barry Askew, who was awarded for 20 years service; 15 years for Zayad Mechreki and Andrew Oakley; Peter Struk for 10 years; and five years for Symeon Bourd, Blake Dickson and Peter Vaneris. They achieved 53 new members throughout the year. I want to congratulate and thank all of our wonderful SES volunteers, particularly the local controller, Peter Gray.
Corangamite Electorate: Avalon Airport
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:52): I rise to express my extreme concern about reports that Jetstar is on the verge of closing down its operations at Avalon Airport, north of Geelong. Just last month, Qantas announced that 299 people would lose their jobs at its heavy maintenance base at Avalon. In the city of Geelong, part of which I represent, we have had enough, particularly given the number of job losses at other major employers such as Ford, Boral, Fonterra and Target.
We are a strong and resilient people. But, frankly, I say to Qantas and Jetstar: you simply cannot desert us. Today I am calling on Qantas to put its faith in the people of Geelong and its faith in our regional airport of which we are so proud. Invest in better schedules, invest in your passengers and you will be rewarded. The news from Qantas today is very grim: another 1,000 jobs to go. But I say to Qantas: you cannot build a business by walking away from those who have supported you.
For the past five years, I have been a very strong advocate for Avalon and its potential as a jobs and transport hub for our region. I will do everything I can to fight to keep Jetstar at Avalon Airport. To Qantas: we as a city will not give up on you. Please don't give up on us.
Gellibrand Electorate: Sikh Community
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:53): I rise today to acknowledge the excellent volunteer work done by Jaswinder Sidhu and the Sikh community in and around my electorate. I visited the Tarneit Sikh temple on Sunday, 24 November of this year. November 24th is a special day for Sikhs, as they honour the martyrdom of the ninth head of Sikhism, Guru Tegh Bahadur. I also attended a fundraiser in Werribee for a breakfast club operated by this community with the Victorian state member for Derrimut, Telmo Languiller, and member for Footscray, Marsha Thompson, as well as my colleague in this place, the federal member for Lalor, Joanne Ryan.
The breakfast club is run by Jaswinder Sidhu, and the free kitchens—referred to as 'langars'—are run by Sikh temples in Melbourne's west. The concept of langar was initiated centuries ago by Guru Nanak, a founder of the Sikh religion. At the langar, no-one goes hungry and everyone gets a hot meal regardless of caste, creed or religion. There are two types of programs run by the Sikh communities in Melbourne's west: a nutrition outreach support and health service that serves food to homeless children, bringing together elderly people in the Sikh community to cook for themselves and for the homeless children; and breakfast clubs, run by schoolchildren from places like the Wyndham Community and Education Centre, the Truganina South Primary School and the Baden Powell College both at Derrimut Health and Tarneit campuses, feeding 230 children every day.
Together, all Sikh temples in Victoria serve more than 50,000 free meals per month and anyone from any background, class, race and caste is welcomed. The west is lucky to call Jaswinder Sidhu its own. He does his volunteer work by working full time at RMIT completing a PhD and he is an icon of his community.
La Paglia, Mr Egidio
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:55): I would like to take this opportunity to pay respects to Egidio 'Eddy' La Paglia from Paddington in my electorate of Brisbane, who passed away peacefully on 30 November 2013. Mr La Paglia was the patriarch of one of Australia's most well-known families. He was the beloved husband of Maria and a much-adored father to Anthony, Michael and Jonathan La Paglia. He is also a loving grandfather to Penelope, Bridget, Tilly and Lola.
Like my father, Mr La Paglia was an Italian immigrant—a fellow Calabrian, in fact. He made the incredible sacrifice of moving to Australia at the age of 18. He came to this country to build a better life not just for himself but for his whole family and for future generations. He raised his family in Adelaide and was an auto mechanic and a car dealer. No doubt Mr La Paglia could not have been more proud of his children, who grabbed the opportunities that this country had to offer with both hands. His eldest and youngest sons, Anthony and Jonathan, are two of Australia's most talented and successful Australian actors. Jonathan is also a qualified doctor—which, of course, is every Italian parent's dream! His middle son, Michael, proudly followed in his father's footsteps and is a car dealer in Los Angeles.
More importantly, Mr La Paglia was a warm, kind and charming man; a true gentleman whose dedication to family was always apparent, and my family had the absolute privilege of knowing him for many years. I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the La Paglia family. Eddy, you will be forever in our hearts.
'The Philippines, We Care' Day
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:56): Last Sunday I saw a prime example of why I am so honoured to represent the seat of Chifley. Last Sunday, some of Western Sydney's community turned out en masse to dig deep for people most of them had never met, hundreds of thousands left homeless and hungry after becoming the innocent victims of Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines on 8 November.
The 'The Philippines, We Care' day, which was hosted by the member for McMahon, the member for Greenway and myself, was one that brought the community together. There were a lot of performances and activities for the kids, all with the solemn purpose of raising funds for people in great need. It was held on the grounds of the Arnott's factory at Huntingwood, grounds not before opened to the public. I want to particularly thank the plant manager, Trevor Campbell, who was willing to do anything and everything to make the day a success, and a great deal of thanks to all his staff as well.
'The Philippines, We Care' fundraiser saw many faces of the Australian-Filipino community out, along with members of other ethnic communities, who wanted to do whatever they could to help the people of the Philippines. The efforts of fellow Western Sydneysiders is not lost on them. The funds, which have passed the $15,000 mark, are being donated to Caritas Australia to help people on the ground in the affected areas within the Philippines. I am sure that those affected would be asking us all to please not give up on giving.
National Broadband Network
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (13:58): Once upon a time there was a fairy godfather named Steve. Steve had a magic wand, and supposed to make broadband services the envy of the world at a very reasonable price. The Western Weekender editor, Troy Dodds, who is here today, tells a very different story about his experience with the NBN. In fact, he was so frustrated with the process that he claims to now be starting a crusade to return to dial-up internet. Drastic, perhaps, but an indication of the people's anger with the previous government's smoke-and-mirrors policy.
Apparently, Penrith is NBN-ready. Troy arrived home one day to find a grey box outside his house. The only thing missing was a gift tag from Kevin and Julia—his words, not mine. He goes on to say that, after checking with his current broadband provider Optus, it was revealed that the charge for switching to the NBN was only $10 a month. Two appointments were set: one for an NBN tech to work his magic, and the other with Optus to install the modem. For Troy, the first sign of the NBN's clunky, difficult piece of infrastructure was two rather intrusive boxes installed in front of his house. He then hit a further technical snag where he could not do more, and the clunky boxes to connect to the NBN resulted in further delays. This just goes to show that the Labor Party's policy of NBN has continued to fail the people of Western Sydney.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time today. The Treasurer will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Investment, and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf on the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Australia-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment has successfully concluded negotiations for a free trade agreement between Australia and the Republic of Korea. The Republic of Korea is Australia's third largest export market. Under this agreement, tariffs will be eliminated on Australia's major exports to Korea, and there will be significant new market openings in services and investment. Tariffs will be eliminated on items such as beef, wheat, dairy, sugar, wine, seafood, grapes, cherries and mangoes. Beef tariffs, I am pleased to say, will be completely phased out over 15 years, which will restore Australia's competitive position in this key market. Australian automotive suppliers will benefit from the immediate removal of tariffs, as will the wine industry. The free trade agreement will provide new market opportunities for Australian services in education, telecommunications, financial accounting and the law.
The concluded negotiations will now go to cabinet for final consideration and to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for consideration. Conclusion of this free trade agreement will see the delivery of a key election commitment. Conclusion of this agreement will be good news for our exporters, good news for our farmers, good news for jobs, good news for growth and good news for Australia. I do acknowledge that the negotiations for this free trade agreement were commenced in 2009 under the former government. I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment for bringing them to what looks very much like a successful conclusion.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): We welcome the Prime Minister's announcement. Australia and the Republic of Korea are strong friends in both war and peace. We are partners in economic, political and strategic matters, and share common values and interests. A free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea presents significant opportunities for Australia. It was former Prime Minister Rudd and Korean President Lee Myung-bak who agreed to launch bilateral FTA negotiations.
The opposition recognises that reducing barriers to trade can boost our economic growth, create more competitive industries and provide consumers with access to a wider range of goods and services at lower prices. The pursuit of these objectives drives Labor's support for a more open global trading system. Labor believes the Asian century is at the centre of our national debate and has opposed protectionist responses to the global financial crisis both at home and abroad.
Labor also successfully negotiated the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement and FTAs with Malaysia and Chile. Labor had an ambitious agenda for trade in office and we will maintain our commitment in opposition. However, we respectfully request that senior government officials provide a briefing to the opposition at the earliest possible time and that the government release details of the agreement that the Prime Minister has announced as soon as possible so it can be reviewed and assessed. We wish to appreciate its impact on our budget and our economy. Not least of all, we want to ensure that Australian jobs are supported and maintained, and that Australian opportunities are available in the future to ensure that our national interest is advanced.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Goods and Services Tax
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no change to the GST, full stop, end of story', why is the government now considering applying the GST to relocatable home parks—the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister promised?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): Our commitments will be kept; but obviously, in the administration of tax law, various things happen, including draft tax office rulings.
Abbott Government
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Firstly, I welcome the exciting announcement on the free trade agreement with Korea. Prime Minister, why it is important for the government to keep its commitments to build a stronger economy and a safe and secure Australia by fixing the mess it inherited and implementing the plan it took to the last election?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the member for Braddon for his question and I can assure him that we are cleaning up Labor's mess by keeping our commitments for the benefit of families and small business in particular. I can inform him that, on day one of the new government's life, we saved the car industry from Labor's fringe benefits tax hit, and we saved nurses, teachers and tradies from Labor's hit on their self-education expenses. We have announced that most of the former government's 100 announced-but-not-enacted tax changes will not go ahead, because that will lower taxes and reduce paperwork. We have closed 21 non-statutory bodies as a downpayment on our commitment to reduce business red-tape costs by $1 billion a year.
The carbon tax repeal legislation has passed through the House of Representatives, as has the mining tax repeal legislation, and there are bills before this parliament to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which will be a strong cop on the beat in a tough industry. The Commission of Audit is well underway, and the son-of-Wallis inquiry into the financial services sector is about to start.
Yesterday I released draft terms of reference for the first big review of competition policy since the Hilmer review two decades back. Handled properly, competition policy reform is an important microeconomic advance and the Hilmer reforms added some 2½ per cent to Australia's gross domestic product. As well, big infrastructure projects like WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne, the Gateway Upgrade Project in Brisbane, the north-south road in Adelaide, the Perth Gateway and the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway upgrades are being accelerated.
We are dealing with Labor's debt legacy. I congratulate the Treasurer for his successful negotiations. He could not get responsibility out of the Labor Party but he did get responsibility out of the Greens. What a miracle worker this Treasurer is. And we are fixing the National Broadband Network, which was billions over budget and years behind schedule. We are playing our part to improve schools, which have gone backwards academically over the last five years despite Labor spending 10 per cent more in real terms. We are doing the job we were elected to do for the benefit of Australia's families and small businesses.
Education
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister promised an adult government that would follow due process with a 10-day cabinet rule. Why has the government repeatedly changed its position, thrown out due process and used a crisis meeting on Sunday last night to determine education policy, the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister promised before the election?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:09): The Leader of the Opposition has simply got his facts wrong.
Budget
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer outline how he is implementing the plan the government took to the election to fix the budget and the economy?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:10): It was a terrific plan that we went to the election with. Madam Speaker, you would be aware of it. It was a terrific plan that focused on building a stronger economy, on getting Labor's budget deficit under control, on putting in place a program to start to pay down Labor's debt, on removing regulation which is a handbrake on the Australian economy and a handbrake on so many businesses, and on giving Australians more control over their lives and not having Canberra second-guess every aspect of their being.
We put in place a policy program which focused on removing those handbrakes by getting rid of the carbon tax. Getting rid of the carbon tax is going to grow the Australian economy. It is going to help every household in Australia by $550 a year. The Labor Party said they were going to terminate the carbon tax but they are so determined to terminate the carbon tax that they have voted to keep it! That is the Labor Party. We should not be surprised about that because they were so appalled at the failure of the mining tax to raise any money that they want to keep it. The mining tax itself is a cost to the budget of over $13½ billion, but the Labor Party has decided that it wants to deepen the deficit and increase the debt that was the legacy of Labor. They want to do it in opposition was well as having done it in government. That is quite an achievement.
We had the courage to go to the election with $42 billion of savings. We were upfront with the Australian people. That is a courageous thing to do. In politics to go to an election with $42 billion worth of savings is not terribly popular but it is the right thing to do. Labor also went to the election with savings, like $2.3 billion on higher education cuts to pay for the Gonski education proposals. I am reminded of the statement by Craig Emerson, the former minister for education—he even had a great graph showing how the Labor Party was increasing expenditure on education despite the cuts. Labor is now so concerned about the cuts they announced that they are going to oppose their own cuts. The Labor Party is so determined to ensure that we keep their policy on Gonski that they are going to vote against the funding of it. That is Labor Party hypocrisy. The problem is that the Labor Party had no principles in government and it has no principles in opposition. It is only good at stabbing itself on the back and now it is very good at being a hypocrite.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Liberal Party television campaign featuring the Prime Minister saying the coalition would repay the debt. Prime Minister, why has the government struck a deal with the Greens to allow the government to rack up unlimited debt, the opposite of what the government promised?
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Members will not use props in question time, and that includes the shadow Treasurer. I call the honourable member for McMahon to ask his question with no props.
Mr BOWEN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I refer the Prime Minister to the television campaign featuring the Prime Minister saying that a coalition government would repay the debt. Prime Minister, why has the government struck a deal with the Greens to allow the government to rack up unlimited debt, the opposite of what the government promised?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:14): Our fundamental commitment was to clean up Labor's mess—and I tell you what: when it comes to cleaning up the mess, even the Greens are more responsible than the Labor Party. The Labor Party now makes even the fringe dwellers look good.
Pentland Irrigation Scheme
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. It has been officially announced that the Treasurer has been accorded the highest of appellations, the title of honorary North Queenslander. In light of this august title and its obligations, and in the spirit of Christmas, can the minister assure his fellow North Queenslanders that the self-funded, mighty Pentland irrigation scheme—$1,000 million annually in ethanol, electricity and stockfeed, plus a power station—shall continue to receive the strongest of Treasury and government support?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:15): I am honoured to become a North Queenslander. I did not know, however, that there was going to be an entry tax of a billion dollars for a Pentland project! But there is no doubt that it is only the coalition that cares about North Queensland. I know the member for Kennedy cares about North Queensland from the numerous occasions I have been there and the numerous occasions he has bitten my ear off. From the meetings I have had with him and various others in North Queensland, I know that the north of Australia has the capacity to become the engine room of the Australian economy in the 21st century. There is no doubt about that and it is something the Prime Minister has embraced. Our commitment is reflected most immediately in the fact that, under the free trade agreement announced by the Prime Minister today, sugar exported from Australia to Korea will have no tariffs on it. That is a huge win for North Queensland and a huge win for Australia. So we are delivering the goods. In relation to the particular project the member for Kennedy asked about, I defer to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him to add to the answer.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:17): I join the honourable member for Kennedy in congratulating the Treasurer on becoming an honorary North Queenslander.
Mr Bowen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister has bullied the Treasurer away from the dispatch box.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is perfectly in order to share an answer.
Mr TRUSS: With the honourable member for Herbert, I was in Townsville last week and met with MITEZ to talk about the study that is being implemented to look at irrigation potential in North Queensland. We received reports about the progress that is being made in identifying suitable land to grow sugar and other produce under irrigation. In April, the member for Kennedy announced a $2½ million study, the funding for which was, theoretically, provided by the previous government. But, as with most things, it did not really get underway until this government came to office. I can report to the member for Kennedy that work is now underway. The contract has been let—Townsville Enterprise Pty Ltd are taking the key role and a team under GHD Hill Michael are working to identify the key areas where investment can be made and looking at the economics of these proposals to make sure that what can be done to achieve the potential of northern Australia, particularly in North Queensland and in growing sugar, is in fact delivered. We will deliver on what Labor promised but failed to deliver.
Carbon Pricing
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister that Qantas paid $106 million and Virgin Australia $47.9 million in carbon tax last year. Will the minister inform the House how all Australians will benefit from the removal of this impost on domestic aviation?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:19): I particularly want to acknowledge the member for Bass, who, as a former head of the Australian Parachute Training School, knows more than a little bit about aviation.
An honourable member: He knows planes that don't work.
An honourable member: He knows when to get off!
Mr HUNT: He knows his way in and out of a plane! This question comes on a day on which a thousand job losses in the aviation sector have been announced. A thousand job losses were announced by Qantas before question time today. So the Australian aviation sector is clearly a sector under real pressure. In Qantas's annual report of 2013, released the day before the election, they acknowledged:
The introduction of the carbon tax drove up operating expenses by $106 million.
The Virgin Australia annual report of 27 September 2013 said:
The company was also impacted by the carbon tax during the 2013 financial year, with a $47.9 million cost of which we were unable to recover …
Mr Shorten: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I spoke to Alan Joyce an hour ago—
The SPEAKER: Order! This is not a point of order.
Mr Shorten: The carbon tax has nothing to do with it. Stop politicising job losses. Shame on you!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! That behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition is totally unacceptable. He can consider himself warned.
Mr HUNT: These costs are real—$106 million in the case of Qantas and a $47 million hit in the case of Virgin airlines, which they themselves said in their own annual report they were unable to recover. Those opposite can sit there in denial, but the costs are real. It goes on: Air Ambulance Victoria was hit with a $205,000 carbon tax cost. The costs are real. This is not surprising, because from the other side we get statements such as this from the member for Port Adelaide:
… Labor supports terminating the carbon tax.
We have the member for Wakefield saying:
I think we should abstain in the Senate, allow the Abbott government to implement its policies …
Senator Mark Bishop said:
The strong public position of the ALP prior to the election and in the election was completely rebuffed by the electorate.
What did the chairperson of Rex Aviation said when Rex had to face this? He said:
However, there is little we can do when the Federal Government—
he was talking about the ALP—
appears to be hell-bent on destroying regional aviation and along with it, pretty much the rest of the economy.
We can fix aviation, but get out of the way.
Commonwealth Debt Limit
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister said before the election that we can never build a better future by doing cheap and tawdry deals with the Greens, why was one of the Prime Minister's first items of business after the election to do a tawdry deal with the Greens to allow unlimited debt? Why does the Prime Minister do one thing before the election and something else straight afterwards.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The new opposition has been given a great deal of latitude by the government over the last few sitting weeks in the drafting of their questions, because they are getting used to being in opposition. But that question, as is the case with many of the questions from the opposition, is laced with argument, particularly the last sentence. The opposition need to learn to draft their questions so that they actually ask questions rather than just being full of argument. I ask you to rule at least the last sentence of the question out of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on the point of order: the only words that could possibly be considered to be argument are direct quotes from the Prime Minister himself. Therefore it is appropriate under the standing orders to put the question to him.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House pre-empted what I was intending to say. The Prime Minister should ignore the last words of the question. Otherwise, it is in order.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:24): The Leader of the Opposition is right in one sense—we have relied on the Greens to pass one particular piece of legislation. Members opposite relied on the Greens to survive in government for three long years. The hypocrisy and double standards of members opposite are extraordinary. We have come to an arrangement with the Greens on this particular subject because it was impossible to come to a sensible arrangement with the Labor Party, and when it comes to economic responsibility the current Labor Party is worse than the Greens.
Small Business
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer the minister to an article published on 7 August in The Daily Telegraph which says that, with the impact of the cost of electricity doubling and freight costs spiralling and other costs of business increasing, it is not surprising more businesses have shut their doors in Dobell than anywhere else in the state. Will the minister inform the House of what the government is doing to support the almost 9,000 small businesses operating in Dobell?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:26): I thank the member for Dobell for her first question, after a magnificent first speech. One of the things that the electorate on the Central Coast knew was that a vote for Karen McNamara and the coalition was a vote to put the business back into small business. I have seen the article to which the member refers. It captures the challenge faced by outer metropolitan areas and areas such as the Central Coast where small business is the economy. This is where small businesses provide the livelihoods, the vitality in the community, the chance for young people to get a start. This article captured how under the last years of the Labor government the small business economy had frozen and opportunities were being lost. Local traders were reflecting on electricity costs doubling, freight costs spiralling and other costs of doing business increasing, and were saying to themselves that they were surprised more businesses had not shut under Labor.
At the election there was a choice—a choice for the people of Dobell to have more of the same, where 412,000 jobs had been lost in small business under Labor; where at the end of Labor there were 3,000 fewer small businesses employing people than was the case when Labor was first elected. The people could choose whether they wanted to stop the decline in the employment provided by the small business sector. Fifty-three per cent of all employment in the private sector workforce when Labor were elected was provided by small business. By the time they left, it had gone down to 43 per cent. So there was a choice, and I am pleased to say that in vast numbers the people of the Central Coast said it was time for a change, time to put the business back into small business. There was a comprehensive small business plan, some of which Labor had voted against twice. Do you remember ending the pay clerk role with the paid parental leave? Labor had voted against that twice. They argued it would have been a devastating blow. But in a thought bubble, trying to come up with some small business policy, they tried to pinch the coalition's policy. They came in here yesterday arguing that we should go and change the very policy that they defended for six years.
This article connects with the real life of small business. The carbon tax has been absolutely punishing for small business. Not only did Labor want to keep the tax but they wanted to see it go up and up. Labor's strategy proposes to extend it to freight costs—one of the concerns raised in this article. We are coming up to Christmas. The opposition leader has some choices. Does he want to deliver a $550 Christmas benefit each year for Australian households and help restore consumer confidence? He can do that by axing the carbon tax. Does he want to help the small business community of Dobell? He can axe the carbon tax. The message from small businesses across Australia is: Bill Shorten, axe the carbon tax.
National Commission of Audit
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister said, 'It's got to be a government for everyone; it's got to be a government for all Australians,' why has the government left out representatives of most Australians, including small business and people who rely on government services, from his Commission of Audit to advise on cuts?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:29): The members of the Commission of Audit, led by Tony Shepherd, the head of the Business Council of Australia, are very well placed to go through the operations of government—department by department, division by division, agency by agency, branch by branch—to try to ensure that government services are as efficient and as effective as possible. Surely members opposite would want a government to be as efficient and as effective as possible. We think that government holds taxpayers' dollars on trust from them. They do not belong to us. They belong to the people of Australia, and we want to ensure that that money is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That is why we have given the job of conducting the Commission of Audit to the appropriate experts.
Asylum Seekers
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. What steps has the government taken to honour its commitment to my constituents in Durack to stop the illegal arrival of people by boat, particularly in relation to the re-establishment of temporary protection visas?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:31): I thank the member for Durack for her ongoing interest in this issue. I know her constituents are very interested in ensuring that we get strong borders back in place in Australia, because the borders we inherited from the previous government were in serious disrepair. She will be pleased to know that the number of people who have arrived illegally by boat since Operation Sovereign Borders began has fallen by more than 80 per cent. That compares with the period after the regional resettlement arrangement, which is nothing more than a hollow shell that we inherited from the previous government—a shell that we have had to deal with with underfunding and lack of capacity. It was not surprising that we inherited such an empty shell because it was a policy—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corio is warned.
Mr MORRISON: It was a policy introduced under protest by the previous government, because for years and years when they were in government they said offshore processing should not be reintroduced. They actually abolished offshore processing. They said that it would never work and that it was something that we should never reintroduce. Under protest—after being dragged kicking and screaming—it was restored. But it had to be left to this government to do it properly.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned.
Mr MORRISON: Under this government, the quick, rapid exit to Nauru and Manus Island of people who come to Australia directly has been put in place. We are actually putting the substance that is making the difference into that arrangement, because the right policy is now in the right hands and it is getting the right results.
The other thing that we did to get these results when we came to government was to introduce temporary protection visas. When we did that we were honouring the promise that we made to the people of Australia to deny permanent residency to people who came to Australia illegally by boat. This was endorsed by their mandate at the election. Those opposite teamed up with the Greens. They voted to honour the promise of people smugglers to people who had come illegally to Australia by boat. What those opposite did not understand was that you cannot say you are not going to resettle anyone in Australia permanently and then, at the same time, hand out permanent protection visas to people who came illegally to Australia by boat. The previous minister for immigration, the former Manager of Government Business in the Senate, handed out 539 permanent visas to people who arrived illegally by boat. That was 269 on average per month. The member for Gorton handed out 195 per month. That was 977 in total. But none was better than the member for McMahon who had a total of 11,122, with an average—a gold medal performance—of 384 per month. You cannot have policies that work against each other. It was a government that was divided against itself. It was divided on borders, and that was why they were such a sorry show.
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise to create one million new jobs over the next five years. Given that the jobs of tens of thousands of workers at Holden, Simplot, Electrolux, Gove and the CSIRO are now in doubt, isn't this the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister promised?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:35): The government appreciates that these are not easy times for many Australian manufacturers. We appreciate that some iconic businesses such as Qantas are under significant competitive pressure. We appreciate that, and obviously we grieve for every worker whose job has been lost. We grieve for them, and we appreciate just how difficult this is for them and for their families. The best thing that we, as a government, can do for the workers of Australia generally—and particularly for the workers whose businesses are in trouble—is do our best to create a strong and prosperous economy. I do not say that that is easy, and I do not say that there is any one measure which is some kind of magic wand. But there are things which good governments can do purposefully, carefully and methodically which will improve things. We have to get taxes down. We have to get regulation down. We have to have predictability and consistency in decision making. That is what this government is determined to provide. We have made a very good start and it would be even better if members opposite would not constantly try to oppose the policies that we took to the election.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: The Leader of the Opposition, who never shuts up, is sitting in that chair there saying, 'I know how you feel.'
Well, there is this difference. When the coalition were in opposition—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: When the coalition were in opposition, we fought to prevent a government from breaking its commitments. This opposition is fighting to prevent a government from keeping its commitments. That is the difference.
Infrastructure and Regional Development
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (14:37): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I remind the minister of his recent announcement that a long-promised grant to relocate the Mackay junior soccer grounds away from the local airport would be fast-tracked to contract stage. Will the minister tell the House what other grants in regional areas were left unfunded that this government is now delivering?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for Dawson for his question. Of all of the examples of Labor mismanagement, the Mackay soccer fields are certainly amongst those with the prizes. This is a $1 million commitment that the Labor Party gave to the Mackay football playing fields project. They made that commitment before the 2010 federal election, but nothing happened for three years, until finally the then minister for regional development wrote to the Mackay football club and said, 'I am pleased to advise you that I have approved funding of up to $1 million, GST inclusive, under the Community Infrastructure Grants Program for the Mackay regional football playing fields project.' That letter was dated 5 August 2013, after the election had been called, but it did not arrive at the soccer club until 23 September, two weeks after the election had been held. So Labor promised this project three years ago and promised it again, but the letter to say it was going to happen arrived two weeks after this government came into office. Isn't that typical! Labor promises and fails to deliver. The coalition will deliver this project.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Quiet on my right and left!
Mr TRUSS: The member for Dawson is able to assure his constituents that the project will be delivered. But of course there are dozens of those projects. Labor are telling everyone—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will desist!
Mr TRUSS: that the coalition should be honouring nearly 1,000 election promises that they made during the period of the election campaign itself or in the lead-up. If the Labor Party actually believe that one party should honour the other party's promises, why aren't you voting for the abolition of the carbon tax? Why aren't you voting for the abolition of the mining tax? Why aren't you continuing to vote for your own promise to cut university funding? This is hypocrisy on a grand scale. The Labor Party expect us to honour their promises, even though they vote against it. We will deliver our own promises, but now we have to also help out the former 2010 Labor government to deliver some of theirs.
Workplace Relations
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise that 'the pay and conditions of workers will be protected'. Prime Minister, how long will it be before that promise is broken?
The SPEAKER: That question is not in order.
Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister tell the House how many of my constituents who have registered their details on the personally controlled electronic health records system would be able to have their records accessed if they presented at Maroondah Hospital in my electorate of Deakin?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:41): Thank you to the member for Deakin. It is great to have a great member back in Deakin. He is a good man. He is working hard for his electorate already. He is very, very concerned about the health needs of the constituents in his electorate. I knew that he had an interest in this electronic health record, or the PCEHR, as it is known.
I knew that we should try and answer this question in a meaningful way, so I said to my department, 'Let's work out on a percentage basis how many of his constituents can turn up to an emergency department and have their electronic health record accessed on the computer system there.' The first thing, of course, was to establish how many people are in his electorate: 126,672, according to the latest census. But there was a problem. There was a big problem. The department said, 'Minister, we cannot provide you with a percentage figure.' I said: 'Surely it's easy. We now know the population. We want to know how many people can access the computer system in the public hospital when they turn up'—not a big ask, I thought. So I said to the department, 'Please, we have to work harder on this.' They said, 'Minister, it can't be done.' I said, 'Let's apply more resources to it.' In any case, they came back to me and said, 'Minister, the reason that it can't be done is that the former government forgot to talk to the hospitals or the doctors about how these systems should work in the public hospitals,' so the answer of course is that zero, not one, of those 126,000 people who might turn up to the local public hospital in the member for Deakin's electorate can get their record accessed on the computer system within that hospital.
The level of incompetence knows no bounds when it comes to the Health portfolio during the time of the previous Labor government. The previous minister looks bewildered. She looks bewildered and befuddled. But it is true, Tanya. It is true. You forgot to talk to the doctors and hospitals.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat, and the minister will refer to people by their correct titles.
Mr DUTTON: Of course, Madam Speaker.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And the member for Lingiari will desist!
Mr DUTTON: I say to the member for Sydney, who looks befuddled and bewildered: it is true. You did not talk to the doctors.
The SPEAKER: I did ask the minister to refer to—
An honourable member: He did.
The SPEAKER: Okay, fine.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This minister has gone further away from direct relevance than anyone else on that front bench—anyone else. The point of order I wanted to take earlier was not only about referring to people by their titles but that what he is talking about is completely irrelevant to the question that he was asked, and he should be brought back into line.
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable Minister for Health and remind him to address the question before the chair.
Mr DUTTON: To try to provide some enlightenment to the former minister, I will leave her with these facts. They announced the personally-controlled electronic health record three and a half years ago. Eighteen months ago the former minister jumped up and said that the system—
Ms King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will desist.
Mr DUTTON: The system was going live and this was a great time for our country. A billion dollars was spent by the previous government, and 10,000 Australians out of 23 million have a record for which a doctor has uploaded a summary of their health information. Do the maths for a second, and it works out to $100,000 per patient.
Government members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: There is shock on this side, but by that side's standard it is not a bad outcome, I suspect.
Health Funding
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister said there will be no cuts to health, why is the government cutting $100 million of funding from the Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:45): That was money that was never delivered by the former government.
Infrastructure and Transport
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (14:45): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure. I remind him of the government's commitment to upgrade Tasmania's major road and freight transport route, the Midland Highway that runs the length of my electorate of Lyons. Will the minister update the House on the progress he is making to make this transport route safer and encourage growth of freight exports?
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:46): Thank you to the member for Lyons for his question. How good it is to have a Liberal back in this House from Tasmania—and not just one, but three. Last week it was terrific to spend a day with the member for Lyons travelling down the Midland Highway. We saw how important it was for Tasmania that this road be upgraded. I can say to the member for Lyons that it is part of the Prime Minister's task to be the infrastructure Prime Minister and we will be upgrading the Midland Highway with $400 million. I am surprised that the one remaining Labor House of Representatives member in this place is opposed to that upgrade, and maybe that is why the people of Tasmania swung so heavily to the coalition in September. We all know that Tasmania is going through economic difficulty and we all know that is being caused by 16 years of bad Labor-Green administration. Hopefully, in March next year the people of Tasmania will change the composition of the Tasmanian parliament, because that state needs the investment; it needs the job creation; it needs to be part of the Roads of the 21st Century, which we will deliver under the stewardship of the infrastructure Prime Minister.
This is a very important project. The Midland Highway is a major freight and passenger route. It carries over two million tons of freight per year, valued at $2.3 billion and it is forecast to double by 2038 to 4.4 million tonnes. We will deliver these upgrades—$400 million worth of upgrades—as well as our package across the country. The WestConnex in Sydney is a project 30 years overdue. The boss of Bill recently supported the East-West Link in Melbourne with the comment that it is a project that needs to be delivered. The secretary of the AWU made the comment that East-West must be delivered, and, given he has given the instruction to his operator here, he must also back that project.
Mr Burke: I left it a moment, because I thought he might be asked to withdraw, but he is once again not referring to members by their title. He has been here long enough to know.
The SPEAKER: I would ask the assistant minister to address people by their proper title.
Mr BRIGGS: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has close ties to the AWU in Melbourne, and the AWU secretary in Melbourne said the East-West project is a project that must be delivered. Under the infrastructure Prime Minister, it will be delivered. Given the AWU's behind it, the Leader of the Opposition will be behind it and the Labor Party will be behind it. This is part of our agenda to deliver the Roads of the 21st Century under the infrastructure Prime Minister. Vitally important to Tasmania and its people is the package of $400 million for the Midland Highway.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:49): Before I call the member for Adelaide I would like to acknowledge that we have in the chamber with us today the Hon. Alan Cadman, the former member for Mitchell.
Honourable members: Hear! Hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Childcare Funding
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the coalition's policy very clearly stated 'we will honour funds contracted from the Early Years Quality Fund', why has his government not paid a cent to honour any of these contracts—the complete opposite of what they said they would do?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:50): We will absolutely honour all of our commitments, and contracts which have been entered into will be honoured.
Child Care
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:50): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I remind the minister that childcare groups and parents in my electorate of Robertson have told me of the burden that the previous government childcare rules and regulations placed on costs for centres and parents. Will the minister tell the House how the government plans to fix the red-tape mess and reduce costs?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:51): It is a pleasure to take a question from the member for Robertson—her first question on the day of her first speech. I listened to the speech and reflected on her commitment to her constituents, particularly her view that flexibility in child care is incredibly important for those on the Central Coast who make that long commute to Sydney and for whom Labor's red-tape mess in child care has forced costs up and made much of the child care in Robertson either unavailable or unaffordable. We went to the election with a strong commitment about red tape. We intend to honour that, and we have made a very good start.
I would like to report to the House that at the education ministers meeting last week I sat down with state and territory ministers and talked about reducing the red tape in child care. Under those opposite, this red tape has been a burden for far too long. Unfortunately, when red tape goes up, common sense goes down. Nobody in the Labor Party is the least bit interested in this, because the Labor Party treats red tape like a security blanket, something to wrap around the work that they do not do, the innovation that they do not support, the services that they do not care about.
Mr Perrett: What—you're going to have free-range kids in the childcare centres!
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Ms LEY: At the moment under Labor's red tape mess there are 58 elements in the quality standard that centres have to pass in their assessment and rating process. Some centres report that it can take up to 200 days to get a draft report back to the centre. The problem is with the inconsistency of this assessment and rating. Centres email me daily with their experiences—experiences which I have to say are ridiculous.
Last week I reported to the House on the expenses that centres are facing around the carbon tax. One centre got a 'working towards' rating—which is, let's face it, not very good—because they were too dark, because they turned the lights off for an hour so that the children could recognise Earth Hour. They did not exactly get the best rating that they could. Childcare centres just cannot win under Labor's hypocrisy. Another example is that you cannot administer first aid on school sites if you are not an educator, even if you are the school nurse. That is another example of Labor's completely ridiculous red tape and regulation. Who can forget the birthday cake example, where the member for Adelaide and the member for Sydney talked about the individual cupcakes with an individual candle because they were too worried about germs in childcare centres? What about the sanitising every time you get in and out of the sandpit? There are sanitiser stations sprinkled around the yards. (Time expired)
Goods and Services Tax
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no change to the GST, full stop, end of story,' why is the government considering doing the opposite and making Australians paying GST on online purchases of less than $1,000?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I will have silence, please.
Mr Hockey: You started it!
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will desist.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is too much noise on my right. I will call the honourable the Prime Minister to answer the question when there is silence. That includes the honourable the Treasurer and the honourable the Deputy Prime Minister. I called the honourable the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:55): Plainly, whoever hands out the questions to members opposite does not have the Leader of the Opposition's best interests at heart, because it was the Leader of the Opposition who first asked for this subject to be reconsidered; it was the Leader of the Opposition who first put this subject on the table. The double standards and the hypocrisy of this opposition and this Leader of the Opposition know no bounds.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition will stop interjecting.
Mr ABBOTT: The difference with the coalition is that, when we were in opposition, we fought to make a government keep its commitments. That opposition over there is fighting to break government commitments. That is the difference. We are always prepared to look at integrity measures in our tax system, but we will absolutely honour the commitments that we have made to the Australian people.
Broadband
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to ensure the NBN can deliver faster broadband to all households and businesses sooner, more cheaply for the consumer and more affordably for the taxpayer?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise the very keen interest his constituents have in ensuring that the NBN is actually delivered as opposed to being the subject of one misleading press release after another, as it was under the previous government.
On Tuesday the former chief executive of the NBN Co., Michael Quigley, was asked whether he thought, on reflection, that he should have set targets that were somewhat more conservative, because all of the targets the NBN Co. set were missed. Indeed, by 30 June next year, the NBN Co. will pass with fibre something in the order of 20 per cent of what the previous government had said in its first corporate plan in 2010 would be achieved by that day. So it has been a colossal shortfall. Mr Quigley said: 'You do think, should I have been more conservative? But the timescales are already set for you, the time frames are already put out for you, so there is not much you can do.'
The previous government forced the NBN to tell the government what it wanted to hear, and there is no worse investment than paying people to tell you what you want to hear. They set unrealistic targets, the company was afraid of telling the truth, and again and again they missed those targets. To the Labor Party, the only thing that mattered was the announcement, the media opportunity, the press release. So again they misled the Australian people. Never forget that, at the time Senator Conroy was telling Australians this was a great investment and mums and dads would line up to invest, they had in their cabinet room a report from Lazard that said the value of the project was a negative $31 billion. It would destroy $31 billion of value.
We are being thoroughly transparent. Next week we will release the strategic review. We are publishing every week the actual rollout statistics. Instead of fudging and hiding and dissembling, they are being published every single week.
I have a challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. He says that their government had good reason to embark on the NBN and that it was just a bit of a mishap that things did not go quite as they might have done. There is an opportunity for the transparency from us to be matched by Labor. The Leader of the Opposition can agree to the cabinet papers relating to the formation of the NBN being released. What does the opposition leader have to hide on the NBN? Plenty, I fear.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the coalition said it would introduce a boat buyback scheme in Indonesia, why hasn't the government bought a single Indonesian boat, completely ignoring this election promise?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:00): I am delighted to be getting so many questions from the opposition today because it certainly makes for a very swift and efficient question time, doesn't it, Madam Speaker? It makes for a very swift and efficient question time. I think there will be a record number of questions answered today.
Our fundamental commitment was to stop the boats. That was our fundamental commitment. While I would not want to pretend to this parliament that the boats have entirely stopped, they certainly are stopping. Aren't members opposite so embarrassed that their shameful record on border protection is rapidly becoming a thing of the past under this government? This government are cleaning up the border protection disaster and absolute mess that we inherited. Never let it be forgotten the record of members opposite—55,000 illegal arrivals by boat, $11 billion in border protection blow-outs and, tragically, 1,000 deaths at sea. We stand by all our commitments. We stand by all our policies. Above all else, we stand by the commitment to stop the boats.
Education
Mr RAMSEY ( Grey ) ( 15:02 ): My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister inform the House how freeing local schools from bureaucratic and centralised education systems, through independent public schools and increasing school autonomy, will help improve student outcomes, particularly in my electorate of Grey?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:02): I am very pleased to get a sensible question on education today from the government because I can point out that the government's policy on implementing an independent public schools program across Australia will have a major impact on outcomes and results for students. This side of the House believe that quality and standards should be our watchwords in all things to do with school education.
In fact, in the Adelaide Advertiser today support came for the coalition's position from a source that we do not normally have in our corner, and that was the South Australian Association of State School Organisations. The director, David Knuckey, said that the Debelle inquiry shows schools cannot depend on the Department for Education and Child Development and that research shows self-governed schools have better outcomes. He went on to say:
OECD research shows that schools run by the local community are more efficient, have improved financial management, reduced bureaucracy and are more innovative.
In fact, on the weekend, in a very excellent column in the Weekend Australian written by Kevin Donnelly, he set out much OECD international and domestic research which shows that school autonomy has a major impact on school outcomes for students.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
Mr PYNE: I am not surprised that the opposition are so loud and confused about this particular issue. They have been confused about independent public schools from the beginning. The previous prime ministers, Rudd and Gillard, were in favour of independent public schools. The current Leader of the Opposition says independent public schools are privatisation, indicating his fundamental misunderstanding.
This is not the only issue of confusion for the opposition on school funding. They supported $2.3 billion of cuts to higher education when they were in government. They proposed the cuts ostensibly to pay for the Gonski model for school funding. Then they took $1.2 billion out of the school funding model in the pre-election fiscal outlook. So they not only robbed Peter to pay Paul; they then mugged Paul afterwards in order to get the money from him as well. That is how confused this opposition are. They took the money from Peter to pay Paul and then poor old Paul never got it. They made sure in the pre-election fiscal outlook that they were taking it out of school funding. That is how confused, hopeless and pathetic this opposition are.
Foreign Investment
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:05): My question is to the Prime Minister, although he may ask the Minister for Agriculture to answer given today's precedent. I refer to the Treasurer's weak decision to reject a major foreign investment bid in GrainCorp and the resulting 25 per cent fall in GrainCorp's share price. Given the Prime Minister has said that with a coalition government Australia is open for business, why is the government now making decisions that show Australia is closed for business, the complete opposite of what he promised?
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There was a shouting match going on across the chamber, and that behaviour will simply not be tolerated.
Mr Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The language—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. We will not have shouting matches across the chamber.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you would have noticed the argument at the beginning of the member for McMahon's question. There was a particular word that should not have formed part of the question. I would ask you to rule the whole question out or potentially he could rephrase the question.
The SPEAKER: I think he should rephrase the question, particularly leaving out the obiter.
Mr BOWEN: I refer to the Treasurer's decision to reject a major foreign investment proposal in GrainCorp and the resulting 25 per cent fall in GrainCorp's share price. Given the Prime Minister has said that with a coalition government Australia would be open for business, why is the government now making decisions that show we are closed for business—the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister promised?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:07): I thank the Treasurer for his question—I mean the shadow Treasurer: he was the Treasurer for much of the time in question. In fact, the foreign investment application in question lay on his desk for months. He says, 'It should have been approved.' He had months to do it and he did not.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon and the Treasurer will stop their personal exchange. We are listening to the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me make it absolutely crystal clear: of 131 significant foreign investment applications, 130 have been approved. By any standard, Australia is open for business. The Minister for the Environment has in the last eight weeks given environmental approval for projects worth $160 billion. By any standard, this country is under new management, it is open for business and the only people who are trying to shut it down are members opposite.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the questions about rephrasing the question by the member for McMahon there was an attempt to ask for a withdrawal from the member for Riverina. The names that were being thrown across the chamber were clearly unparliamentary.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear what he had to say, but to assist the parliament the parliamentary secretary may withdraw.
Mr McCormack: To assist the parliament, I withdraw.
Crime
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the coalition's Safer Street fund and thank the minister for a funding commitment of $300,000 for CCTV cameras in my electorate. Will the minister outline to the House the coalition's plan to make our streets safer?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (15:10): I thank the member for Solomon for her question. I was very pleased to be able to join her during the recent election campaign and to fund three projects of significance within Solomon that she had been lobbying very hard for. The projects are for three sets of CCTVs that will make her electorate safer.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Kingston and Kingsford Smith will both desist.
Mr KEENAN: This commitment is part of our $50 million Safer Streets policy. This policy is designed to support communities to address crime and antisocial behaviour by funding measures such as CCTV and lighting. This funding will target crime hot spots in local communities, based on the advice that we get from those local communities in conjunction with local policing services.
Of the $50 million funding for this program, $41 million is coming from the National Crime Prevention Fund and $9 million from proceeds-of-crime money. We made this policy announcement in October 2012 and made very clear where the money would come from. That money had at the time been frozen within the budget. Traditionally, proceeds-of-crime money has funded crime-prevention projects, but the Labor Party in its desperate search for savings said that it was not going to honour what previous governments had done and make sure that proceeds of crime were actually invested in crime-fighting projects. We did not think that that was a smart thing to do. We said that we would take that money and invest it around Australia in projects that the community thinks are important to tackle crime in their local area.
Subsequently, the Labor Party had a change of heart. They said that they were now going to take that money and invest it in crime-fighting projects through the national crime prevention program. After freezing that money, they made announcements between 7 August and 19 August this year. We had already allocated that funding to our Safer Streets project. The Labor Party made those commitments in the full knowledge that if they lost the election the commitments could not possibly be honoured, because we had allocated that money to the Safer Streets program. They misled—wilfully misled—very good community organisations—
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister should be asked to withdraw his last remark. He knows that reflecting in that manner is completely out of order.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I do not need to hear from the Leader of the House. I simply say to the minister that if he wishes to talk about wilful misleading there are other ways of dealing with it, not in question time. The minister shall continue his answer.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He does not need to withdraw.
Mr KEENAN: Madam Speaker, it is very hard to know how to characterise running around Australia telling community organisations something that you know not to be true. Unfortunately, that is what the Labor Party did. As they have done in so many portfolio areas, they have left us with a significant problem.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is warned.
Mr KEENAN: We have excellent community organisations who have been expecting funding that the Labor Party knew full well would not be committed if they lost the election. We will deal with this as well as we possibly can. (Time expired)
Mr Abbott: After 25 questions and magnificent answers—a record, as I understand it, for this parliament—I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Budget
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:14): Madam Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The SPEAKER: The minister may proceed.
Mr HOCKEY: I was asked by the member for Capricornia about the plan to fix the budget and the economy that the government took to the election. It included fixing the taxation system that we inherited from the Labor Party, which included two significant issues. One was the GST as it applies to low-value parcels and low-value imports. I note that the Leader of the Opposition commissioned not one but two reports into the GST applying to low-value imports. The member for Lilley actually commissioned Treasury to do some work, which was then passed to the state—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer is actually seeking to add to an answer that was asked of the Prime Minister, not of him. He is not being directly relevant to the one that was asked of him that he is claiming to add to.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will continue his answer, which is adding to an answer. He will remain in the context of that addition.
Mr HOCKEY: Of course. The second issue, as we went to the election to try and clean up the taxation system we inherited, is that it was the Labor Party who were advised—in fact, it was the former member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, as Assistant Treasurer—of a proposal to change the GST treatment of moveable home estates. It was the former Assistant Treasurer, who is now running a tattoo parlour in Emu Plains!
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:16): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member believe that she has been misrepresented?
Ms KING: I do. In question time today the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development sought to claim that I had, after caretaker mode, signed off on funding for the Mackay junior soccer club. The facts are these: it is true that the previous government made a commitment in the 2010 election to fund the junior soccer club. I understand that there were significant issues with the project, and it took quite some time to negotiate contracts.
The SPEAKER: No. We are now going to argue. Just show where you are misrepresented.
Ms KING: So the department was undertaking contract negotiation—
The SPEAKER: Just show where it was—
Ms KING: Yes, of course. I was very keen to ensure the project went ahead and signed off on the project to make sure the funding flowed to ensure it was not cut.
The SPEAKER: Where was the misrepresentation? The member will resume her seat. If you wish to show where you are misrepresented, you must state what has been said and then you must show why it is wrong, not argue as to what you wanted to do or how you wanted to go about it. 'Was it or was it not signed after the caretaker period?' I guess is the answer.
Ms KING: I was just getting to that point. Thank you very much for your assistance.
The SPEAKER: Well, get there very quickly or you will resume your seat.
Ms KING: Thank you for your assistance, Madam Speaker. It was signed off prior to caretaker mode.
Mr Truss: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter from the Hon. Catherine King, and it is clearly dated 5 August 2013.
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the Deputy Prime Minister, and of course he may table the document.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:17): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
The SPEAKER (15:18): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The undermining of public confidence caused by the Government promising the Australian people one thing before the election and doing the complete opposite afterwards.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:19): The coalition said one thing before the election and, ever since they have been elected, they have been hell-bent on doing everything but what they said before the election.
I think this is a government who rather famously promised before the election that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses. Indeed, Australians are learning that they are a government of nasty surprises and pathetic excuses. I think most famously in support of this proposition we remember the Treasurer, then the shadow Treasurer, saying that there was a budget emergency. The proposition in front of the House today is that, if you are ever in a real emergency, do not call 'Dr Abbott' and 'Nurse Hockey'. Imagine if you had a debt emergency. What will they say over there? What will Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey do? What will they do when there is a debt emergency? Inject more debt into the system! Why not?
But then, of course, you have got the Greens emergency. Before the election, you could not even wear the colour green without being lambasted as part of some left-wing Marxist conspiracy. We know those famous words that the now government would say: 'Don't do tawdry deals with the Greens.' They said that the Greens were economic fringe dwellers, but this bunch of cynics opposite have never seen a promise or a statement that they would make that they would not jump over in order to pursue power.
What we see with this coalition government is the acid of coalition cynicism corroding public trust in politics. We talk about the real emergencies. A real emergency, as revealed by the international experts, is that for the last 10 years under the inadequate Howard government SES funding model we saw inequitable funding of schools. That is the emergency. We see the results going backwards. So what did Dr Abbot and Nurse Hockey—and I do not know how you would describe the Minister for Education; 'hapless' would probably be most accurate this week—instead do? When you have got an emergency which says that the system is inequitable, what on earth do you do? You inject more inequity into the system. Why on earth didn't Labor think to give money to the states and then allow the states to take their own funding out of education? What brain surgeon came up with that proposition?
But then, of course, we talk about the challenge of jobs. There can be no more important issue than jobs in Australia. I can forgive the coalition for some things. I promise in this debate not to say how relieved the Swiss are that the coalition said they are going to focus on Jakarta, not Geneva. I get that that is actually a complex issue, although I am sure the population of Switzerland is breathing a quiet sigh of relief. What I can't forgive the coalition for is that before the election they said, 'There are a million jobs—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I hear the Minister for the Environment piping up—what a misnomer that title is! Minister for the Environment? He's never seen a green paddock he would not concrete, never seen a bit of pollution he would not reward—what a joke!
Let's get back to the important issue of jobs. There is no more important issue in Australia than making sure that Australians can have jobs. When in opposition the now coalition government said, 'We'll give you a million jobs in five years.' I suppose we should have read the fine print. Did they mean net million jobs, or just a million jobs gross and then we will see how many jobs these people lose on their watch? Today in question time we asked the government, 'How is that million jobs promise going in light of the closures at Gove, in light of the sacking of CSIRO scientific staff, in light of what's happening at Simplot and Electrolux and in light of the disastrous news today for hundreds of people at Qantas?' We asked the government what they are going to do, but we got no answer whatsoever. Their answer to a jobs emergency is to find more unemployment.
The biggest problem we have had since the election is that the cynical administration that the coalition is emerging to be actually thinks that what is good for the coalition is good for the country—and we reject and repudiate that assumption. We see opposite us a government who said they would be orderly. Then we got the chance to read Paul Kelly's insightful piece in The Australian. You would think that since they have been in government they would have been calmly planning, in that education laboratory they keep well hidden out of public eyes, policies to target inequity. But then we actually find out the truth from Paul Kelly's article. It was Sunday night, all of the coalition were wondering, 'What will we do?' 'Thank goodness,' they say, 'Foreign Minister Bishop is back in the country.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I think they said that! So they fly the foreign minister back in and the adults in the coalition grab the Minister for Education and they say, 'Don't you get it? Before the election you didn't do any work for three years, you didn't have a theory on education, and then you realised that Labor was absolutely pounding you in terms of having better education policies. In early August you slyly and trickily decide to pretend you're Labor in drag and that you can trust the coalition on education. Then what happens is you get into government and you go back to who you really are—not interested in reforming school funding.'
On the Sunday night he realised the outcry of annoyance and frustration—not from Labor but from teachers, parents and students. Any coalition member leaving parliament this week thinking they have had a victory on education lives in an alternative universe. The only people who have had anything approaching some sort of win in education have been the parents and students who are starting the process of making sure the government keeps their broken promise. We know that the coalition were dreadfully nervous about being seen to break a promise. I bet they do not mind breaking a promise on the Eye and Ear Hospital, which is a terrible judgement on them; they do not mind breaking a promise about working with the Greens, who they lambast and vilify and demonise—except, of course, if they can do a dodgy deal and get their votes—and they do not even seem to mind breaking a promise on the GST.
We did not ask the coalition in opposition to promise that they would not change the GST—they offered it. There was no gun to Joe Hockey's head. The coalition said they would not be changing the GST. But wait till they got into government—the backsliding, the position-changing: 'We didn’t really say that,' 'You didn't read my mind,' 'You didn't see that when I was standing up making the promise that I had my fingers crossed and my toes crossed and I didn't really mean it.' What consumers now face with this coalition government is the prospect that they will slap a new 10 per cent tax on online purchases.
But even if all those broken promises count for nothing, the promise which this opposition will not let the government get off the hook on is the betrayal of the promise to the schoolkids of Australia. I get that you are taking away the SchoolKids Bonus—only Charles Dickens and the coalition government could have dreamed up that Scrooge-like act—but what I cannot get is breaking the promise on education. We have an international report saying that our schools are falling behind because there is not enough equity in the funding model.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I am not surprised that the member for Kooyong laughs about not enough equity in the funding model—he would not know what I was talking about. Equity in funding means that you fund children according to their needs. What do the coalition do? Remember I started this story about the beginning of the week: when you have got an emergency, do you call triple-zero or do you call Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey? What could they have done when they saw the education emergency? They could have looked at their solution before the election, where they had just promised to match Labor. Instead, what they have done is say, 'Quick, if we say that we are going to keep part of our promise from before the election, everyone will forget and we will move on to other issues.'
I will tell you another group of people who will not forget the last week of this coalition government in a hurry—other than 3.5 million schoolkids and their parents: the shareholders of GrainCorp. Imagine if Labor had been in government and we had made some knee-jerk reaction to appease part of a sectional base and wiped off 26.42 per cent of shareholder value. On 28 November, GrainCorp shares—
Government members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I would bet the people yelling do not have GrainCorp shares, because it is self-interest that motivates them. On 28 November the price of a GrainCorp share was $11.20. Today, after Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey running around putting the band-aids on their base, I am afraid to say that the GrainCorp shares are $8.24. Fantastic. Do you know how you get a great small business in this country? You get the coalition to be in charge of big business! Down by $2.96.
Look at those opposite. They have got the great myth of Australian politics: 'Because we are the coalition, we can just be trusted. We might have said it before the election but things happen and things change'. But it takes real going to manage to kill the price of a company's shares by 27 per cent in a matter of days. The CEO is gone. Parliament of Australia: it is our submission that it does not matter if it is debt or dealing with the Greens, schools or GrainCorp, this mob opposite are not the people they promised Australians they would be at the election.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (15:29): Let me begin with a question, and it is a very simple question. Five days before Julia Gillard lost her job, who said:
I will support Julia Gillard. Let me just say … I have supported the Prime Minister, I continue to support the Prime Minister, I campaigned for this Prime Minister …
Who said that? It was the Leader of the Opposition, who has just scuttled out of this House like a nervous cockroach because he is afraid of his own history. In answer to the question, 'Will Julia Gillard still be Prime Minister at the end of this upcoming sitting,' who also said:
Yes, I believe so. And before anyone interprets what I mean by the verb 'believe'—
just so he is not tricky—
Yes, I support her, okay? … I appreciate your interest in the matter … and I can only be as clear as I've been. I support our Prime Minister and I support our Prime Minister because of the job she has done and is doing.
Guess who it was? It was the Leader of the Opposition, 10 days, on that occasion, before he knifed her. Who said, again just 10 days before former Prime Minister Gillard was knifed:
I categorically deny that there is canvassing going on that I'm involved—
far be it for him to be involved!—
in about the leadership. … I'm happy to repeat it because it’s an important issue. I continue to support our Prime Minister—
Prime Minister Gillard. Who could that have been? The Leader of the Opposition. But it was not just three times that he spoke before the cock crowed; there are many more examples. Who also said, only five days before the knifing of the same former Prime Minister:
I will continue to support Julia Gillard to be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia, and will continue to campaign for Julia Gillard and Labor to form the next government of Australia.
Once again, it was the Leader of the Opposition. Then on the same day, still five days before that fateful day, the 'night of the long knives'—maybe the second time he had been involved—who said again:
… what I'm going to do in terms of the leadership debate, is be consistent. And consistently, I say that I support the Prime Minister, and I support our Prime Minister because of what she's got done in this period of the minority government.
Could it have been the Leader of the Opposition? It was. And again who said:
I will continue to support Julia Gillard to be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia, and will continue to campaign for Julia Gillard and Labor to form the next government of Australia.
Again, it was the Leader of the Opposition. But, a few days later, who was it who said this:
… this is not an easy decision for me personally … I believe that Kevin Rudd being elected leader tonight provides the best platform for Labor to be competitive at the next election.
It was the same person who had made all of those previous eight statements only a few short days before: the magnificent, the trustworthy, the pious, the believable and now the consistent Leader of the Opposition, on 26 June.
So this is a moment of wonderful parliamentary irony. The Leader of the Opposition puts forward a matter of public importance on trust and, in particular, on 'the undermining of public confidence caused by the government promising the Australian people one thing before the election and doing the complete opposite'. This is the man who gave us the definition of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. This is the man who not only knifed the previous Prime Minister; he knifed the Prime Minister before that. So, whenever you hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he is going to do something, say how important it is, say how consistent he is, all you have to do is remember Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, and maybe give them a call on the phone and see whether or not they agree.
The broader point is that this comes from a party which, prior to the 2010 election, said something like, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Who said that? It was the Labor Party leader of the day. Who set out in the same week, the day before the election, 'I rule out a carbon tax'? It was the Labor Party. And who delivered a carbon tax after the election, only a few weeks afterwards, when they married the Greens? It was the Labor Party. What we have here is not just a pattern of deception; it is a pathology of deception. This is their DNA, their nature—to say one thing and do the other. Today is an exercise in grand irony, given what has gone on over the last six years.
The member for Lilley, who is not in the chamber, famously said—and I do apologise; I misquoted him yesterday. I said that he thought the idea of a carbon tax be introduced by Labor was 'hilarious'. In fact, it was worse than that. He said:
… what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax …
Unfortunately, it was not 'hysterical'; it was deadly accurate. That is what they said before an election, and we all know what they did after the election.
But it goes beyond that, if you look at some of their famous broken promises and what they said before elections and then afterwards. In August 2007, Kevin Rudd said, before they were elected to government:
Our budget orthodoxy is identical to the Government's on this … there is no slither of light between us.
He said, 'I've always said I'm an economic conservative. That means budget surpluses.' Well, let me tell you what their budget surpluses were: a deficit of $27 billion, a deficit of $54 billion, a deficit of $47 billion, a deficit of $43 billion, a deficit of $18 billion—and they left office with a notional deficit of $30 billion, but every day we open the cupboard and discover unfunded liabilities in almost each and every portfolio. So Labor had six budgets after the declaration of 'no deficits' and of their leader being a fiscal conservative, and every one was a record deficit compared with anything that Australia had ever faced.
Mr Frydenberg: Fiscal vandals, Greg—fiscal vandals.
Mr HUNT: It was a perfect record of fiscal vandalism, as my friend the member for Kooyong says. In 2007 we also heard from the opposition, as it then was, led by Mr Rudd, that he promised a very hard line on the question of people-smuggling, a very tough line on the question of people-smuggling. The result was an opening of the doors to 50,000 people, and 1,100 souls, 1,100 lives, 1,100 people who would never live to see another day in what is undoubtedly not just the greatest backflip but the greatest peacetime policy failure in Australian history. So for the party on the other side in some way to talk about trust in regard to what they said before an election, as opposed to what occurs after an election, is a moment of intellectual sickness.
Then we also had this again famous promise from the then opposition, 'On many occasions for many months federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates.' What did they do? In the 2009 budget the Labor government announced that the 30 per cent rebate would be means tested, a classic broken promise on the basis of saying one thing categorically—locked in, pledged in blood, pledged before the Australian people—and then doing precisely the opposite thing after the election.
To top it off, Kevin Rudd declared before the election, 'The government will have no intention to bring in other taxes.' However, the following year in 2010 his government introduced nine new taxes. They were cutting the superannuation tax-free threshold; putting restrictions on business loans; making changes to the employee share scheme; introducing imposts with the mining tax, the ethanol taxation increase and the LPG excise increase; tightening restrictions on medical expenses before claiming them; increasing the luxury car tax—and a range of other broken promises.
Ultimately we had the Leader of the Opposition making pledges in blood before the Australian people of his undying love for Julia Gillard and how he could never challenge her. Unfortunately, something happened on the way and he did challenge her—just as every other promise was broken. This opposition can never ever be trusted while these people are in charge. (Time expired)
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:39): It is terrific to speak on a very important motion and wonderful to follow the Minister for the Environment. He says he is the Minister for the Environment, but so far all we have seen is someone who is a pollution apologist, who gets up every single day and talks about how great it is to pollute our environment more. Here is the very first example of where the government breaks a promise. They say they are going to have an environment minister but instead they appoint a pollution apologist.
This government said they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses; so far they have been a government of pathetic excuses and very nasty surprises. Just three sitting weeks in we have seen broken promises on health, on education, on debt and on the GST. How can Australians trust a single word that comes out of the mouth of the Prime Minister and the government? They said, for example, that they were on a 'unity ticket' with Labor on education funding. Our education funding proposal is $14.65 billion. Where is your funding program?
The Leader of the Opposition was comparing the Minister for Education to a nurse earlier—or was that 'Nurse Hockey', 'Candy-striper Pyne' or more accurately 'Annie Wilks' of the education system. 'You can vote Liberal; you can vote Labor; you will get the same amount of funding for your school.' This was a promise they knew they would never keep because they are not prepared to do what were doing: saying to the states, 'For every $2 we put in, you must put in a dollar.' They are saying, 'We'll throw you a bit of extra money just to keep you quiet because the teachers, the parents, the kids, have been successful in making their point. So yes, we'll get dragged kicking and screaming to put a little bit of extra money in,' but they are saying to all of the states and territories now that when the Commonwealth puts in money, 'feel free to cut your education budgets, feel free to cut standards, feel free to cut transparency, feel free to dud the children of Australia'.
The other day the Prime Minister gave one of the worst answers I have heard for some time: 'The student resource standard is well known.' It is not known to him because he is never going to reach it. The Minister for Education was saying, 'Nothing we're doing will undermine loadings.' They know that that is not the truth. They know that, by letting states off the hook, those loadings for disadvantage will never be met.
Foreign affairs: what to say? We had a statement before the election that their foreign policy would be less Geneva and more Jakarta, and aren't they breathing a sigh of relief in Geneva over that one! It has taken the Minister for Foreign Affairs three weeks to get to Jakarta, at a time when our relationship has been historically bad. I will tell you why they are so bad. They are so bad because before the election those opposite were saying, 'Turn back the boats, buy back the boats,' and making all sorts of unilateral claims about what they would do in Indonesia, on Indonesian soil, in Indonesian waters, without ever having discussed it with Indonesia. One of the first principles of foreign policy is to have an open dialogue with your neighbours.
Bushfires: they promised concessional loans of $100,000 for small businesses affected by disasters—not one cent paid. Louise Markus, who is not even here now, has raised not a word to defend—
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: In fact, I do not remember her seat. She is not in the Blue Mountains very much, is she? She has raised not a word in defence of her constituents. Concerning the emergency relief payments which those opposite have said are just the same as under Labor—no, they are not with the same as under Labor. People in the Blue Mountains are missing out today because those opposite, in a sneaky, underhanded, secretive way cut funding, cut payments to people affected by disasters at their time of need, when they most needed help. We have had so many examples that it is difficult to pick and choose between them, but my personal favourite is, 'The Greens are economic fringe dwellers. If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' We have seen today a very nasty deal, a very nasty surprise and a number of pathetic excuses from those opposite. (Time expired)
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:44): Speaking of 'nasty', Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to get the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the aspersions she cast on the member for Macquarie.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no—
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:44): She is not going to withdraw?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have not asked her to withdraw.
Mrs GRIGGS: Whatever! I think it is quite ironic that the Labor Party want to talk about promising one thing before an election and delivering something else after it—because it is the Labor Party who are good old hacks at doing this. It is ALP philosophy—it is part of Labor's DNA—to overpromise and underdeliver. Labor are the party of broken promises. You can count on them to break promises. They cannot count, they cannot manage a budget and we know they cannot handle a credit card. We can credit them, however, with the biggest election backflip of all time. Before the election, the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
Mrs GRIGGS: I beg your pardon?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Solomon will not respond to interjections across the chamber. The member for Blair will cease interjecting. The member for Solomon will be heard in silence.
Mrs GRIGGS: In an outstanding act of deceit, the Labor Party are now blocking legislation in the Senate, legislation doing just what they promised they were going to do. They were going to get rid of the carbon tax, but here we have them blocking legislation to do just that. The Leader of the Opposition promised one thing to the Australian people before the election—he was going to get rid of the carbon tax—but now he is blocking it. They are going to keep the carbon tax. They want to keep the carbon tax. All the Leader of the Opposition and his party members do is mislead the Australian people. They did it for six years and they are continuing to do it now.
On this side of the House we are methodically going about the challenging task of cleaning up Labor's mess. We are keeping our commitments, commitments like abolishing the carbon tax. Labor's reaction to this is to stall and frustrate. The mandate of the Australian people was to get rid of the carbon tax and that is exactly what we are going to do. The people of Darwin and Palmerston voted to get rid of the carbon tax because the carbon tax was increasing their cost of living. So we are working to get rid of the carbon tax.
This was not the only promise the Labor Party have failed on. The Leader of the Opposition and his cronies promised a better deal for Northern Territory schools. They promised the people in my electorate that the Labor Party would look out for local schools in Darwin and Palmerston and give them all the support they needed. Luckily the Northern Territory government are pretty switched on. They realised that the deal the Labor Party was offering was not that good—taking from schools in my electorate and giving to schools where the kids do not even go to school. It is just ridiculous. So the Northern Territory government did not sign up to Gonski—and thank God they did not. After that, the Leader of the Opposition cut $1.2 billion from education funding, a cut that was going to affect people in my electorate.
Again, in contrast to the Labor Party, the Abbott government is keeping its commitments on school funding. We are actually delivering more funding over the next four years than was promised by the Labor Party. Territorians are going to be better off under this deal. The coalition will improve schools and educational outcomes for students in Palmerston, Darwin and the Northern Territory more generally. Our plan is focused on what we know will work—good teachers, more power for principals, more say for parents and the community and a stronger curriculum. That is what will work.
As well as honouring our pre-election commitment to match the previous Labor' government's school education funding for the next four years, Minister Pyne has addressed Labor's appalling decision to slash $1.2 billion from the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australian education budgets. As part of an additional $230 million going to those three jurisdictions in 2014, the Territory will receive an extra $67 million. So we will be able to give parents and teachers more say, create a sound national curriculum, improve the quality of teaching and generate funding certainty.
There is no doubt that the party that breaks promises—that overpromises and underdelivers—is the Labor Party. We are the party that delivers on our promises. The Australian people believe us and trust us. They know they cannot trust Labor. That is why they voted them out.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (15:49): I know I am a new member and that I have only been here a few months, but I am shocked. I am shocked at how quickly this government has backed away from its promises—how it has flip-flopped and backflipped since it took office. I remind the House that the Prime Minister promised, at his campaign launch, that there would be no surprises and no excuses from his government. Yet all we have seen is endless, pathetic excuses. We have also seen multiple backflips—backflips back and forth on funding. There have been so many backflips that they could almost be a gymnastics team. Perhaps we will need them to be our gymnastics team—who knows where the funding is for the Institute of Sport? Will they continue to fund it? Thank God we have a government that is able to do so many backflips so efficiently!
One of the areas very dear to my heart and very important to the people of Bendigo is education. Let us remind people what they said on education. First the Liberals said, 'Gonski is a conski'. That is right—they did not back Gonski. Then, once they realised that the people wanted it, that the state schools wanted it, that the Catholic schools wanted it and that the independent schools wanted it, they said they were on a unity ticket—that it did not matter whether you voted Labor, Liberal or National, you would get the funding. Now we have seen that they have backed away from that. They have backflipped once again—so many backflips!
Mr Frydenberg: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I have a question for the member for Bendigo.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is an MPI. There are no interventions allowed under the standing orders.
Ms CHESTERS: Before the election, they promised that no school would be worse off, that they would provide exactly the same funding per school. Yet they have said to the states that there are no strings attached to the funding. They have said to the states that they can do what they want, which could lead to cuts. From a school in my electorate, I have already been informed of the first of the state cuts. This is a corker. At Kyneton Secondary College the Victorian state government is dismantling buildings. It is removing the demountables, and that will happen over the holidays, but get this—although the buildings are being taken away, the school is allowed to keep the walkway in between the buildings because that is a permanent structure. They are dismantling our schools already because this government has not been on the unity ticket, and that is the commitment Labor had with the Better Schools Plan.
Before the election the coalition promised public sector workers that they would not be made redundant, yet we have already seen widespread redundancies. Hundreds of workers are losing their jobs, with those wages being withdrawn from our community and services being made weaker. In the time remaining I want to mention a few other commitments made in my electorate before and during the campaign. We have to start with the Bendigo tennis centre—a fantastic project committed to by the previous government, with $5.2 million being allocated to upgrade the facility. At the time, the Liberals supported it. In the Bendigo Advertiser of 24 August we see the Liberal Party comment that they support the upgrade of the Bendigo tennis centre. Yet here we are, the Liberals are in government and the government have backflipped—they are not going to fund the tennis centre. Let us go to university funding. Prior to the election we saw in the Bendigo Advertiser comments from the Liberal Party that they were appalled by the cuts to the Bendigo La Trobe campus. Yet, when they have the chance to stop the cuts, they do not.
This leads me to question the commitments the Liberals made to my electorate during the election campaign. I will put those on the record and ask whether they will backflip on these cuts too. Let us start with the $300,000 boost for the Castlemaine respite facility. The then shadow minister for families, Kevin Andrews, said that he was committed to the project, that it was vital for the area and that his government would put $300,000 in. There was $500,000 for the Kyneton Community Park—the shadow minister for the environment made that commitment. Will that funding go ahead or will there be another backflip? What about the $180,000 for the Bendigo RSL? You might have worked out that they thought they could win this seat, but unfortunately for them they did not. (Time expired)
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (15:54): I am pleased to rise on this matter of public importance. When my children were toddlers they had an expression they used when someone said or repeated something a bit bizarre. They would say that a person must have been hit in the head with a silly stick. That must be what has happened to opposition members today. It is either that or we have some very lame humourists on the opposition benches. For them to propose that the government is undermining confidence is absolutely bizarre. The matter of public importance submitted by the opposition today talks about an undermining of public confidence by the government. Is the opposition serious? Are we to infer from this MPI that Labor had somehow built up public confidence during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd shambles of the last six years? Do they think that confidence had reached a high point under their administration? Do they believe that?
This poses the question: why did Labor lose the election? I suggest they lost because the Australian people had lost confidence in their stewardship and their handling of major policies. For example, Gonski had become an act of faith for them but the policy specifics were a mess. The Minister for Education has had to fix up the shambles and is producing a real national model. Similarly, the National Broadband Network had become a farce. It was a fantasy. People in my electorate knew that. It was all on the never-never. People in my electorate were told by the Labor MP before the election that they would become the new Silicon Valley of Australia. But there was no NBN in sight—not one fibre-to-the-premises connection occurred in Eden-Monaro in the last six years. The Minister for Communications has put that vital major national infrastructure project back on track.
When a party promise no carbon tax and then implement one, and when you say as a party you will deliver a surplus and then fess up and say very late in the term that it is all too hard and not possible, you cannot seriously think that somehow that party had the people's confidence. Confidence was at a low point—that is why they are over there, in opposition. I am bemused by this MPI. Let me quote from a recent Roy Morgan research report:
Roy Morgan Research's Business Confidence survey in September showed that Australian business confidence rose to the highest level since January 2011 following the federal election. The rise of 14.7 points to a score of 134.3 is the biggest monthly increase in Business Confidence recorded since the survey began in December 2010.
The people of Australia can be very confident that this government is getting on with the job. We have returned certainty to all those people who were to be ripped off by the FBT on car leases—as we said before the election we would do. The people can be confident that we are implementing our border protection policies, as we said before the election we would do. We have cut illegal arrivals by over 80 per cent. We are getting rid of the destructive carbon tax, as we said before the election we would do. We are getting rid of the destructive mining tax, as we said before the election we would do. People can be confident that we are getting the debt problem under control, as we said before the election we would do. We are getting on with free trade agreements. We have heard today about the Korean free trade agreement—something we said before the election we would implement. We are re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a vital economic reform for this country—something we said before the election we would do, and we are getting on with it.
We can be confident in one thing—that the people have no confidence in Labor. Get out of the way and let us clean up the mess. When we were in opposition we tried to stop the then government from breaking their promises, and they are now try to stop us from keeping ours. The hypocrisy is breathtaking—as is this MPI topic.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (15:59): I would just like to quote a couple of things to the House which I think really do highlight the problem that this government has in terms of what they were up to and, now, what they are really up to. At their campaign launch, the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, said:
We will be a no-surprises, no-excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future.
Let us go through some of the 'no-surprises' and 'no-excuses' we have had in recent times. We have had a series of positions in relation to education. Some say they are back flips. Some say it is gymnastics. Frankly, it is not far off the Kama Sutra. There is one thing for sure about it, and that is that this education minister does not know what he is doing.
Government members interjecting—
Mr GRIFFIN: I note that the member for Kooyong is interjecting. I am sorry that I cannot take an intervention from him on this occasion. When the Prime Minister said, 'I will keep my commitments. We will do exactly what we say we will do,' what he forgot to say is, 'But we will have to keep working out what that is on almost a daily basis,' because what we are dealing with here is a government that has definitional issues. It is a government that has difficulty being clear about what it actually means in a whole range of policy areas.
I mentioned education, and, frankly, this minister is getting one at the moment. He is getting one at the hands of the sector. He is getting one at the hands of parents. And he is getting one at the hands of his cabinet colleagues, apparently. In another reference to the commitments made by this government prior to the election, the Prime Minister talked then, as opposition leader, about orderly government—the adults were going to be back in charge. He talked about a 10-day rule for cabinet, and it has turned out to be a 10-minute rule. He talked about restoring accountability and improving transparency. Then, when we look at what we are dealing with in regard to border protection, you cannot tell us anything unless we are at the briefing—and if we are at the briefing you cannot tell us then either. That is the nature of what we are dealing with with respect to this government.
I note my friend, the member for Kooyong, on the issue of foreign policy. I have to agree with the Prime Minister on one thing. He did say that the member for Kooyong effectively knew a lot more about foreign policy than the current minister. I probably do, too—and we all know that probably ain't that much! They promised a Jakarta focus. We have got the Jakarta focus—and that is that we are trying to find it! We are trying to work out exactly where it is. Then we are waiting until we go there because we are not quite sure what we are going to say when we get there.
When you look at this government you have got a real problem, and you need to start to realise it. We can have the debates in the House. We can have the banter back and forth. The previous speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro, mentioned the issue of Roy Morgan. I will give you some Roy Morgan. This government's position has collapsed when compared to any recent new government, including the Howard government, the Rudd government and the Hawke government. The coalition's position in the public opinion polls has collapsed already. The question now is: where does it go from here? The amazing thing is that you have been able to, in a few short months, create a situation where you actually have to rebuild your support. You have got to a situation where you are in dire difficulty with the Australian community in terms of how you are being perceived. You have to start to repair that damage, otherwise you will have one hell of a problem come the next election.
As we look at these issues and as we look at the things that you have done so far, I can only say, 'Roll on the next 2½ years,' because if this is the start, it is going to be one hell of a finish. If all you have got to look at is the nature of the last few months, you had better think again, because, across so many areas of government already, what we are seeing is that this government does not understand what it is to keep commitments, to form a contract with the Australian people and to ensure that they govern on behalf of all Australians.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:04): This place just gets weirder and weirder and weirder. It is a little bit weird to have the member for Bruce—and I like the member for Bruce—in this place talking about the Kama Sutra. He has probably spent a bit too much time with his friends from the HSU. I also noticed that the member for Bruce talked about the Howard government and the Rudd government, but he seemed to forget the period of the last few years—and it is probably a bigger proportion of my life than it is of his life. There was the period of the Gillard government. It is probably important that we remind the House about the period of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. I think it is very strange that we have 'Mr Loyalty' himself, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, coming into this place and talking about the importance of trust. It is very strange, and the member for Bruce and the entire Labor Party would do well to pick up the phone to either the former member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, or the former member for Lalor, Julia Gillard, and talk to them about what the Leader of the Opposition actually thinks about trust and self-interest.
When we come to this place it is important that we are upfront and honest with the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition was the person who said: 'Don't worry, Kevin. I am right behind you. I am right behind you.' And he was right behind him—with a big knife, waiting to put it into his back. The Leader of the Opposition talks about trust. He came into this place and he told the Australian people: 'Don't worry, I am right behind the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Don't worry, I am right behind her.' And then, of course, he assassinated her as quickly as he assassinated Kevin Rudd. This motion before the House is about trust. It is incredibly important that we do uphold our commitments to the Australian people. That is exactly what this government is doing. We promised the Australian people that we would get rid of the carbon tax, a tax that costs Australian families, on average, $550 a year. We brought a bill before this House to remove that tax. That bill is now going to the Senate, and it is up to the Labor Party to decide: do they want to give relief to people in my electorate and to Australian families across the country? But we took that to an election and we are delivering on our promises.
That is very different to, and it is in stark contrast with, what those opposite did. Before the 2010 election, we saw the Labor Party come out and heard the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard, say, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Not only did she promise that there would be no carbon tax but she promised that she would set up a climate consensus or a forum to discuss these sorts of issues. To follow it up, the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer, came out and said, 'We reject any hysterical allegation that there will be any carbon tax,' and yet the last election was a referendum on a tax that the Labor Party promised never to introduce. So we are absolutely honouring our commitments to the Australian people by passing a bill through this House and sending it to the Senate to repeal a tax that the Labor Party promised to never introduce.
And then, of course, we talk about promises before an election. Kevin Rudd before the 2007 election said: 'I'm an economic conservative. You can trust me. You can trust me with your money'—because ultimately governments spend the people's money, not their own—'because I'm an economic conservative.' They promised on literally hundreds of occasions to deliver a budget surplus.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
WYATT ROY: As the member for Forde points out, on over 500 occasions they promised to deliver a budget surplus and to be the economic conservatives that they told the Australian people they would be. Instead, the Labor Party delivered the biggest deficits we have ever seen in history. They actually turned nearly $50 billion in the bank, $50 billion that we left them, into a projected net debt well over $200 billion. Even though they promised to be economic conservatives, what they actually delivered was the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. That is their record. They promised the Australian people that they would be economic conservatives. They promised the Australian people that they would deliver budget surpluses. But they presided over the biggest increase in our debt that the Australian people have ever seen.
Now it is up to us, as we promised the Australian people, to clean up the mess that the Labor Party has left us, because it is future generations of Australians that will benefit from it. (Time expired)
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (16:09): Before the election the now Prime Minister memorably said that under his government there would be no lame excuses and no surprises, but what have we seen in reality? Surprise after surprise after surprise. Before the election, the now Liberal government said that they were going to tackle debt. They said that debt was a big problem. But in government they are in the business of increasing debt, abolishing the debt ceiling and handing over money to the Reserve Bank, undoing Labor's initiative to get more tax from multinational corporations. Their new position on debt is a very big surprise.
But it is in the area of education where the surprises have been greatest. Indeed it has not been so much a surprise as shock after shock. You could hear the stakeholders, including Liberal governments, audibly gasp last week every time the Minister for Education opened his mouth, because, before the election, the education minister said:
… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school except you'll get $120 million more from [us] …
Before the election, the education minister said: 'We are committed to the student resource standard, of course we are. We are committed to this new school funding model.' Before the election, the education minister said:
Parents and schools need certainty in funding arrangements. They need to know that their school's funding arrangements won't be prone to sudden change.
… … …
I have seen first hand just how angry parents and communities get without certainty.
But after the election he announced that we would have to go back to the drawing board—surprise! Plenty of uncertainty there. After the election, he said that the school funding model that was implemented by the Howard government 'is a good starting point for a school funding model'—surprise! He was no longer committed to the Gonski school funding model. After the election, the education minister said that he would amend Labor's legislation to give all states no-strings funding deals—surprise!—walking away from the needs based loadings that the Gonski report said were crucial to our closing the education equity gap, walking away from the promise: 'You can vote Liberal or Labor; you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.'
Last week, the education minister reminded me constantly of the actor Jim Nabors playing the sitcom character Gomer Pyle, whose catchcry was, 'Surprise, surprise, surprise!' Indeed, all you have to do is change one letter and Pyne becomes Pyle. These Gomer Pyle surprises not only appalled the Labor Party—we clearly would have fared better at the last election had the government revealed these surprises before the election—but also appalled the Liberal governments of New South Wales and Victoria and appalled government and non-government schools alike.
Kathryn Greiner, hardly a Labor stooge, a member of the Gonski panel, urged the education minister not to walk away from their recommendations and offered to meet with the minister. Radio National interviewed the education minister last Tuesday, put this offer to him and said: 'Would you sit down with the panel for a day so they can convince you of the systems benefits? Would you do that?' The education minister's reply was:
No. I've studied the Gonski model closely …
But, having disgracefully junked all that effort in this high-handed and arrogant way, the education minister next day denied that he had done it. He told the ABC in Adelaide:
I never said to anybody that I wouldn't meet with the Gonski committee.
What an incredible front—and that was not the only barefaced contradiction last week.
On ABC Radio Adelaide on Wednesday last week, the education minister said:
I've never said that we'd be reverting to the Howard model so I don't know where you've got that … from.
Well, just possibly the interviewer had got that from the minister's comments the day before, when he said:
I believe that the school funding model that was implemented by the Howard government … is a good starting point for a school funding model.
The education minister had apparently forgotten his remarks of just the day before. Bear in mind that the New South Wales education minister, a Liberal Party education minister, had said about the Howard model: 'As the Minister for Education, I can say that New South Wales will not agree to returning to the broken SES funding model.'
The people deserve better than a government whose numerous backflips have done much to undermine confidence in our education system. In order to restore confidence, the government needs to believe in the Better Schools Plan. (Time expired)
Mr McCormack: I rise on a point of order: I did not want to interrupt the member for Wills, but he should know that the New South Wales Minister for Education is not a Liberal. He is in fact a National—the member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli. I ask him to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. It is disorderly, and the parliamentary secretary should know better.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:15): I am the last speaker for the debate and I am astonished by the arguments put up by the other side. They introduced the world's biggest carbon tax and we are one of the smallest emitters in the world. That is 100 per cent correct. How do you unscramble an egg? They have left us a big mess that this government must correct. We will start with the debt—we have gone from a credit to a big debit on the balance sheet. It is about to hit $300 billion in the next couple of days. What a disgrace! What a waste of money over the last six years. They referred to Gonski. What is Gonski? It's a Gonski all right—it has gone. Even Gonski himself has said, 'You have only taken 2½ per cent of my suggestions out of the whole Gonski report'—meaning the former Labor government. Where did all the jobs go under Labor? Over 200,000 jobs were lost in their term of government. And 50,000 people have arrived illegally on boats, putting great pressure on our budget and on our pensioners, who are saying to me and others on this side of the House: 'Why are you so free in giving away our money when it could be going to a much worthier causes, like looking after us—pensioners who have worked hard and paid their taxes and now require aged-care facilities and so on? Why have you wasted our money?'
Business confidence was the lowest it has ever been under Labor, and coming from that low benchmark it has kicked on since we gained power in September. Business is now more confident; they can see a direction that they want to follow; they can see we do not move the goalposts. As Mr Abbott has said, there is no changing of the goalposts every five minutes. Government bureaucracy peaked under the Labor administration and we say that some of these jobs in Canberra should be sent out into the rural areas, where people are needed. How do we address all these issues—these Labor follies? We are going to start by removing the carbon tax and if the opposition in the Senate does not approve its removal, they will be in oblivion for the next 30 years.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (16:20): As I was finishing my remarks before question time, I indicated that Labor will support schedule 2 of the bill. We are pleased with a number of the elements with the Turtle and Dugong Plan. They piggyback on and extend a range of things that former minister, Mr Burke, put in place with local Indigenous communities and, in spite of some of the reservations I indicated around the apparent cessation of the work that the Turtle and Dugong Taskforce was doing around the framework on illegal poaching and hunting, we would support schedule 2. However, we will not be supporting the provisions in schedule 1 of the bill, and I foreshadow that I will be moving during consideration in detail an amendment to omit schedule 1.
The proposed amendment in schedule 1 looks on its face to be a modest one, but in our view goes to the heart of the biodiversity conservation provisions of the EPBC Act. The framework on biodiversity conservation in this act, an act put in place by former environment minister Robert Hill, is set out largely in chapter 5 of the act. It is a very important part of our environmental protection provisions. It provides a number of elements. The first is to ensure that the parliament and the broader community are well informed about the state of Australia's biodiversity through a range of survey and other work that is done by our agencies and, in many cases, by non-government agencies that are doing wonderful work in the electorates of all members.
The second part of the framework is to compile a list of threatened species and ecological communities—for the purposes of this bill, I think species are particularly important—based on good scientific advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which will map and provide expert reports on the position of particular species referred to the committee.
The third element of the framework is to provide certain protections to threatened species. The species might be vulnerable, endangered or—in some very concerning cases—critically endangered. These protections often go to things such as the enforcement of penalties against hunting threatened species and suchlike, and protections are often extended to a range of other species, such as migratory species and a range of marine species.
The fourth element of the framework is to ensure that formal advice be prepared by proper authorities, overseen by the department, to ensure that government and the broader community—including the private sector—act in a way that is best designed to preserve and assist the recovery of threatened species. This provision, particularly, is affected by schedule 1 of the bill.
Section 226(b) of the EPBC Act, as it stands without amendment, provides that conservation advice be prepared on every threatened species and that the advice include information about what can be done to stop the decline or support the recovery of a species. A minister can also decide to ask that a recovery plan to support proactive action on the recovery of a species be put in place. It is this conservation advice that is the subject of schedule 1 of the bill.
The provisions relevant to the amending bill are in section 139 of the EPBC Act, which sets out conditions on the basis of which a minister can approve a controlled action—usually a development, whether it is a mine or some other type of development—that has the potential to impact on the environment. One condition of approval being granted by a minister is that the minister must have regard to approved conservation advice if the development has the potential to make a significant impact on a particular threatened species.
It would appear that this bill has its origins in a decision of the Federal Court earlier this year which invalidated a decision of the former environment minister on the basis that the department at the time did not provide the conservation advice that had been prepared for the Tasmanian devil, which is a listed threatened species. It is very clear from the decision, which is in the public realm, that the minister took deep account of the position—and this position is, I think, well known to all members all members of this House to be precarious—of the Tasmanian devil in Tasmania. It is clear that he took deep account of the issues and imposed a range of conditions on the development which would ensure that the development was sensitive to the position of the Tasmanian devil. But the Federal Court decided as a matter of technicality that the fact that the department had not provided a hard copy of the conservation advice to the minister along with the broad report on the development invalidated the minister's decision.
This is obviously a quite straightforward technicality to remedy. After that Federal Court decision—while I was minister for the environment, for example—it was a requirement that every relevant conservation advice thenceforth be provided in hard copy to me as part of a report, and I imagine that the practice is continuing under the new minister. I think that this practice is quite sufficient to deal with the deficiency which was identified by the Federal Court decision. The amendment bill, however, takes a sledgehammer to cracking this particular nut: I am quite convinced that the department's changes to practice have dealt with the Federal Court decision, but the bill removes any legal recourse from section 139 of the EPBC Act. The bill essentially provides that a failure to provide conservation advice will no longer be challengeable in a court of law.
In Labor's view, the capacity of a non-government party, usually a non-governmental organisation, which can show that it has a relevant interest in a matter to challenge a legal decision before a court of law—the relevant interest being ultimately determined by a judge of the court—is an incredibly important pillar of our system of government. The capacity of members of civil society, if they can show locus standi, to go before a court and challenge a decision of government is an incredibly important pillar of our system of government. It is sometimes deeply inconvenient, as new ministers of the government will find out, and it can be embarrassing from time to time, but such are the ups and downs of a vigorous democracy. It has happened to all of us who have held executive positions in this system of government.
The obligation to consider a conservation advice will remain if the bill is passed, but the accountability to the community through the courts will be removed. For the life of me I cannot see the good purpose in this. Even considered as a stand-alone provision, schedule 1 of the bill would not be supported by the opposition. We would not support this amendment; it is sledgehammer to crack a nut. Departmental practices have changed so that they are more than sufficient to deal with a Federal Court action.
But we are particularly concerned about the bill when it is viewed against the background of the policy the government has started to implement of handing over approval powers under the EPBC Act to state governments—first of all, the Queensland government—to protect matters of national environmental significance. The Labor Party opposes this policy position, and we oppose it because we take the view that the national government, whether it be Liberal, Labor, LNP—it does not matter which—or even the National Party, one day maybe, Parliamentary Secretary—
Mr McCormack: Hear, hear!
Mr BUTLER: Whoever it is, it is the national government's responsibility to protect matters of national environmental significance. Provision 1 of the bill is a particular double whammy when viewed against the background of the policy decisions of this government by which the environmental approval powers would be placed in the hands of a state government such as the Newman government—which, in our view, has a very poor record on environmental protection.
We will not be supporting schedule 1 of the bill. I must say that I confess to still not understanding why schedules 1 and 2 have been put together in one bill. We are happy to support the turtle and dugong protection elements of the bill, but will not be supporting schedule 1. I foreshadow that, during consideration in detail, I will be moving an amendment to omit schedule 1 of the bill. In our view, it is important that debate on this bill take place against the backdrop of this government's decision to hand over the environmental approval powers to some state governments. (Time expired)
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:30): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Pacific Highway
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:30): I rise to give the House an update on the duplication of the Pacific Highway in my electorate of Page. Once completed, it will transform the region, benefit businesses, create much-needed jobs and, most importantly, save lives. Last month, along with my state colleague the member for Ballina, Don Page, I had the honour of turning the first sod on the Pimlico Road diversion that will allow the second stage of the multibillion-dollar duplication of the Pacific Highway between Woolgoolga and Ballina to proceed. The major construction work between Ballina and Woolgoolga will provide more than 4,300 direct jobs and, I am told, about 12,900 indirect jobs, which of course will bring money into the local economy.
The turning of the sod also marked another milestone in this nationally significant project. It marked the end of the squabbling by the previous Labor government, who were unilaterally insisting on changing the funding split with the state government to fifty-fifty. This was after they were funding this highway at 80 per cent when it was a state Labor government. When the coalition won the state election, they wanted to suddenly revert to 50 per cent. This was unacceptable. Our government rightly took the decision that the completion of this multibillion-dollar project was far too important let be held to ransom and we have gone back to the originally agreed 80:20 split with the state government.
The Pacific Highway duplication is one of the largest road infrastructure projects in New South Wales. Infrastructure Australia has rightly named it as a project of national significance. Indeed, in terms of New South Wales, the Pacific Highway tops the priority list for Australia's most populous state. Started as a joint federal and state government initiative in 1996—Madam Speaker, you probably remember that the Howard government was the first federal government to give money to the Pacific Highway—the project will provide a minimum of four lanes of divided highway between Brisbane and Sydney.
I am happy to say that a lot of this project has been completed, and the section between Ballina and Woolgoolga, which is largely in my electorate, is the final large piece in the huge jigsaw. The upgrading of the sections to the south and north of Page have brought major improvements, including safer travel, reduced travel times with improved transport efficiency and improved amenity and safety for our local community. It is an unfortunate fact of life for those of who live on the north coast that we often wake to the news of fatal crashes on this single-lane section of the busy highway. This is one reason the families of Page are eager—or, should I say, desperate—to see the duplication completed.
Earlier this year, Senior Sergeant Bill Darnell of the New South Wales Police, who was interviewed by ABC Radio, said crashes were now far less common on the duplicated sections. He said:
… the parts of the highway that are divided now—Tweed Heads to Byron Bay, and the Ballina bypass for my end—have seen less conflict, particularly frontal conflict where opposing directions of traffic end up crashing.
This massive project also brings enormous economic benefits to the people of Page. Not only is it great for businesses but it goes to the core of my election promise of creating more jobs in the region. The highway will link the businesses of Page with the major markets of Brisbane and Sydney, offering them potentially millions of new customers.
Indeed, the completion of the upgrade is an issue the Northern Rivers division of the New South Wales Business Chamber has long called for. When they and the half-a-dozen local chambers of commerce developed their 10 big ideas to grow the Northern Rivers, the highway was front and centre.
This project is not just important for my electorate; it future-proofs the nation. The government report on the Sydney-to-Brisbane corridor strategy forecast significant growth in traffic on the Sydney-to-Brisbane corridor. It indicated that interstate freight between Sydney and Brisbane would almost triple over the next 20 years, compared with an expected doubling of freight on most other national freight corridors. Upgrading this piece of infrastructure to address freight demand and deliver travel-time savings increases Australia's productivity. In addition to moving goods and people safely and efficiently along the corridor, it contributes to developing our regions and cities.
Population
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (16:35): In my speech on the address-in-reply, I told the House I was going to establish a non-government organisation to campaign against rapid population growth and its attendant environmental and planning consequences. We had our first meeting last Sunday, 1 December, attended by over 100 people, at the Remington Community Centre, which was the subject of high-quality discussion about the shortcomings of rapid population growth.
I put forward an alternative to the direction we are going now, which I absolutely believe is the wrong direction. At the heart of this smart alternative is the idea of stewardship. I owe the word to my sister Jacquie, who is a strong Christian. You will have heard the phrase, 'We don't inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children.' I think that is spot on. We do not own the place; we have the privilege of managing it for a while. I have regularly finished speeches by saying that we have an obligation to hand on to our children and grandchildren a world in as good a condition as the one that our parents and grandparents left to us. I think 'stewardship' is a good word to express this fundamentally crucial idea. I have decided that I like it better than 'sustainability'. You could fill libraries with the work done on sustainability. Properly understood, it is indeed a powerful and useful idea. But, sadly, it has been so used and abused and prostituted, including by the forces of darkness, that it has become an Alice in Wonderland word—'When I use a word, it means whatever I choose it to mean.' So nowadays it is pretty meaningless. When people hear the word 'sustainability' in future, I encourage them to substitute for it the word 'stewardship', which I find works pretty well.
The second thing about my alternative is that it is very mainstream or middle of the road. I believe in giving the voters what they want. I know that people who believe in giving the voters what they want are at risk of being called names—for example, 'populist'—but the people who scream 'populist' are essentially trying to fool us into supporting ideas that are not in our own best interests. The people who scream 'populist' reveal a basic contempt for the people and their ideas and a lack of respect for democracy.
Some people will think that my ideas are radical because they are very different from the path we are on at the moment. Some will think them conservative because they place a lot of value on our heritage and value the past and are sceptical about the changes that are happening in our world. But at their heart they are giving the voters what they want, not what some billionaire or their media puppets think is good for them.
Another element of my ideas, again consistent with giving people a genuine say, is making things as small, local and self-sufficient as we can be. Globalisation has helped a lot of people but it has also harmed plenty, and in the world of the future we will be better off retaining as much independence, self-reliance and self-sufficiency as we can.
Given that, and because we have to start somewhere, I want to focus on Victoria First. Victoria has a greater population increase each year than any other state or territory, driven by having the largest migration intake. What on earth is the value of this? We are told that the big increase in Australia's migrant worker programs is to meet the needs of the mining boom and to find workers for remote and inhospitable parts of Australia that locals will not live in. That is the myth. The reality is that more people come to Victoria than anywhere else, and Victoria ends up with all the problems associated with this rapid population growth. Melbourne grows by 200 people a day, 1,500 people a week and 75,000 each year. In my view, Melbourne and Victoria are the archetypal examples of the folly of rapid population growth and for me, Melbourne and Victorian born and bred, it is exactly the place to start a fight back and to push back against this foolishness and short-sightedness.
Edward Kennedy said in the memorable speech he gave for his second assassinated brother, Robert:
Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.
I encourage my fellow Victorians, many of whom I know are concerned by rapid population growth, to join my non-government organisation Victoria First.
Rural and Regional Health Services
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (16:40): I come from Kimba—the district population is about 1,200. I was born in the local hospital, something that cannot happen anymore—obstetric services have been discontinued. I had my appendix removed there when I was nine and had another procedure when I was about 20. That cannot happen anymore—surgery has been discontinued. I spent 10 years on the hospital board, seven as chair, improving the service, eliciting community support and attracting new staff, including replacement doctors to the single-doctor practice. We cannot do that anymore, because the boards were all sacked. I have continually used the local doctor throughout that whole period and, apart from short times when the community was between doctors, have enjoyed wonderful full-time service. Now it seems, as of the end of this year, I will no longer be able to do that either.
Kimba is on eastern Eyre Peninsula, on the northern end of the grain belt. Cleve is 75 kilometres to the south and Elliston is 200 kilometres to the west. All three will lose their single doctors at the end of the year. It seems, with the abolition of our local champions on the hospital boards, the job of attracting new doctors to the regions has been subsumed by Country Health SA. In the case of the Kimba practice, at least, it was well known that the doctor wished to retire. The question must be asked: how dedicated has Country Health SA been to the task? Or were they willing just to let the retiring GP soldier on, serving the community out of a sense of loyalty until he finally baulked and refused to go on?
Country Health has announced that from early next year the three towns will be serviced by three new doctors working from the Cleve practice providing just three days a week services to Elliston and Kimba. Perhaps this is the best they can do, but I am not convinced that the management of these issues from afar by individuals who are not affected by the result attracts the same kind of dedication and enthusiasm as management by someone who is affected.
For instance, imagine trying to convince a target doctor what a great community it is to live in when you have never lived there yourself or to galvanise community support to present an improved and competitive package when you are not part of that community. We all know about the difficulties in finding GPs for country practice. The problems and obstacles are myriad—backup, on-call, partner's opportunities, feminisation of the workforce, children's education et cetera—but there are great benefits in country practice as well. Many who have lived this life tell me they relish the opportunity to be a 'real doctor' making a broad range of medical decisions about patient management and working on emergency management, rather than being a referral service to specialists for anything more complex than ailments that can treated by a course of antibiotics.
The financial rewards of country service are well in front of city practice. Recently a rural based doctor in solo practice told me that he did not know why doctors were so reluctant to tell others what they earn in single-doctor practice, but in any case he was happy to share that he earned between $300,000 and $320,000 year, taxable. Not bad! Obviously money is not the issue. After all, if $320,000 a year does not work, I am not confident that half a million would work any better.
Managing the supply of doctors has always been fraught: not enough, too many, not enough and too many again. Certainly we have come through a period of not enough. With the ramp up of medical student numbers through the last 10 years greater supply is coming on-stream. But the question remains: how do we get them into rural Australia? There is an old adage: the customer is always right. Perhaps it is time to apply this adage to the medical market.
In the end, with our Medicare system, taxpayers are funding these services. Surely they have the right to say where they want the service delivered. Why would we, as taxpayers, having largely paid for the training of the doctor, then allow the doctor to set up business in an over-serviced area like North Adelaide? Why would we not, as the purchaser, insist that the service be delivered in Kimba, Elliston or Coober Pedy or anywhere else that we might like the service presented?
While the medical profession will defend the current arrangements to the death, I believe it is time we took the bull by the horns and made Medicare provider numbers postcode specific. Doctors can still practice wherever they like, but they would not be able to access taxpayer subsidies to assist them in making what are essentially lifestyle decisions. After all, why would we give someone a subsidy to supply a service where they want to live and not where we want the service? Failure to address this issue of rural doctor shortage will see a continued deterioration in the health of rural Australia and the liveability of our communities.
Michael John Maher OAM
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:45): If there were ever a former member of this place whom I would seek to emulate, it is the late Michael Maher, who died on 29 September, the former member for the electorate of Lowe. I thank Michael Easson for allowing me to read his obituary of Michael Maher in this place, in his honour:
Michael John Bernard Maher, politician and solicitor, was greatly admired across the political spectrum as a diligent, local MP who saw the vocation of politics in pastoral terms, as serving the people. Thus the manifold representation of his constituents was no mere chore to be endured and given minimum attention so as to play in the great game of politics. For Maher, high politics was ancillary to the essential, noble tasks of representing the public. He was a model, modest member—but never to be under-estimated because of that.
Maher was born on July 11, 1936 in Haberfield to a staunch Irish Catholic, Labor voting family, the son of Denis (Clem) Maher and Marie O’Connor. He joined the ALP at 15. After leaving school he joined the public service and studied part time. This was in the 1960s when Sydney University ensured staff and resources were readily available to working students undertaking a first degree. He graduated in Law in 1965, along the way defeating Bronwyn Setright (now Bishop) in student elections. … He later completed an Arts degree and a Masters in History.
Michael was always interested in politics, with several relatives who were politicians, including cousin Ray Maher (1911-1966) who unsuccessfully stood for Drummoyne in the 1930s, and who was an MP for several other seats from 1959-1965, and uncle Roy Jackson (1895-1964) MP for Drummoyne from 1953-56.
After a close contest against aspiring Liberal John Howard in 1968, Reg Coady, the Labor State member for Drummoyne entertained retirement. But he wanted Maher to succeed him. He held on at the 1971 election and then, before the 1973 contest, aged 37, Maher stood and, despite a statewide swing against Labor, won by 378 votes; Maher subsequently achieved an astonishing two-thirds of the primary vote in several subsequent State elections, known as the Wranslides.
At his side was the Irish-born and educated Dr Margaret Bermingham, a gentle, sharply intelligent, good-humoured, common sense soul, lecturer in BioScience at the University of Sydney, whom he married in 1971. They were to have five children.
As an MP, bureaucrats and politicians were astonished at Maher’s relentless pursuit of cases on behalf of his constituents. Seeking consumer protection laws for people ripped off by dodgy insurance agents, supporting migrants settling in Australia, pursuing housing for impoverished pensioners, pouring his soul into winning small victories for people set upon by the system was an immensely time-consuming effort. Most days, even when Parliament wasn’t sitting, Maher would pop into his Macquarie Street offices to get correspondence typed up by the Parliamentary pool. Transport Minister Peter Cox called him the Minister for Bus Stops as he was always pushing route changes and extra stops on the public transport that he himself assiduously utilised. He enjoyed the company of the many Italian, Maltese, Greek and other communities in his electorate.
When the former Prime Minister Billy McMahon retired from public life in 1982, a by-election loomed for his federal seat and Maher was persuaded to give up his now decidedly safe seat for the federal electorate of Lowe. Maher achieved a big 9% swing to capture this previously safe Liberal seat.
After winning again in the 1983 and 1984 elections, a torrid campaign in 1987 saw Maher narrowly defeated. Paul Keating lamented that a man of such talent had not been a Minister. But Maher was never to return to public life. Instead, as a solicitor, he served his clients with characteristic relentless dedication to solve their problems.
In political life, Maher saw his greatest achievements in micro terms. Politics was local and personal. But he also played an immense role in co-drafting the Heritage Act in NSW, and ensuring that Labor modernised; his preference vote secured the election of Neville Wran as NSW Labor Leader in 1973. … Maher had a streak of independence and voted with his conscience on many issues in internal and public debates. He got seriously involved in policy development; aboriginal affairs and civil liberties were passions. He had a Pope Francis-like insight into what was important between State and Church.
For a long time, Maher was struck by Parkinson’s Disease which over a decade left him terribly debilitated; his wife Margaret was constantly devoted; she was his advocate and carer. Their love is an example to us all.
He passed away on September 29, 2013 in the care of St Mary’s Villa, Concord. He was buried with his first communion rosary beads, his Medal of the Order of Australia, his Labor Party life membership certificate and his trademark hat, so often tipped on door knocks throughout the electorates he served. In Gaelic, the congregation asked … may his noble soul rest in God’s right hand. He is survived by Margaret, and children Mary, Iona, Fildema, Anthony and Brigid, their spouses and six grandchildren.
May he rest in peace and continue to be an inspiration to us all.
Michael John Maher OAM
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (16:50): I thank the members who have allowed me to talk briefly, following the member for Greenway's emotional words, about Michael Maher. I want to concur completely with what she had to say about him. Michael Maher was my family's member of federal parliament, and he was a good man. In the spirit of bipartisanship, there are great people on both sides of this House, and he really was one of them.
I did not know Michael—I knew of him—but I had the honour of attending his funeral, and I came away from that funeral feeling that I did know him. I think that is testimony to the strength of his faith and his belief in his family. I listened to his four children give eulogies that day and I was moved to tears not knowing him.
I remember him being called the 'minister for bus stops', which Michelle made reference to. He was just a great local member. He was there if you needed to talk to him. As I travelled through my electorate, doorknocking in my quest to come to this place, I was told time after a time stories of his days as the member for Lowe.
I reiterate the words of Michelle and add my voice to the condolences to his wife, Margaret, and the children. It was touching to be there with them to celebrate the great life that it was. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: I also knew him and he was a gentleman to the core, despite our clashes at university.
Labor Government
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (16:51): The Labor Party seem to think that their loss during the election was a result of disunity. I have got something to clue the Labor Party in on: the real reason that the Labor Party lost was because they were a bad, dysfunctional and incompetent government. That was the reason for their loss.
The simple reality is that disunity is only ever a symptom, it is never a cause. Disunity results from something. If the Labor government under Rudd had been a good government, there would have been no real disunity and certainly no leadership change. The Labor government, in both iterations, were an economic disaster and they failed to honour promises. The least that they should do now is allow us to fulfil our promises.
We have had an election and we have had a very long previous parliament—three years' worth—where we laid out a number of things very explicitly, and two things were very strongly put: that we would repeal the carbon tax and that we would repeal the mining tax. The carbon tax is having ongoing costs to our society—$550 per household per annum. These are costs that should be removed now, and the opposition should be allowing us to fulfil that obligation and promise to the electorate. Similarly, the mining tax is a complete disaster. It collects just about nothing in the way of money, it is having significant effects now in terms of mining performance and how our sovereign risk is viewed by multinational mining corporations that are choosing to go elsewhere. Mining is not a one-stop shop where they can only come here and not go anywhere else. There are alternatives and, unfortunately, many of these companies are choosing these alternatives.
The Labor opposition have a fundamental problem: they believe in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. They call this equality of outcome 'equity'. People need to have the option of determining their own destiny after being given that opportunity. Labor's position, as with their view on equity—and we heard this from the Leader of the Opposition during the MPI—clearly shows a lack of understanding of reality. Billions of dollars went into school halls, unneeded duplicate pieces of infrastructure such as tuckshops—you name it, they got it at exorbitant prices—as well as a whole lot of other worthless projects. Labor equates spending, the throwing of money at a problem, with a solution. It is not, and this has been clearly demonstrated by the PISA results recently, where we have crashed down the rankings, as far as educational performance is concerned, despite large amounts of money being spent on it. The simple thing is, money is not the solution—carefully crafted policy is.
I had a bit more to say, but I know that time is running short. Given that the member opposite kindly allowed me to have a minute's worth of time, I will allow him to have the remaining time.
Type 1 Diabetes
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (16:56): Thank you, member for Tangney. I wish to speak for the time remaining about an insidious condition which affects many Australians—about 1.5 million—and a number of our young. That condition is diabetes.
Recently, what I would like to call a community champion or a local legend, Mairi Anne Macartney, mother of type-1 diabetes sufferer Tess Macartney, came into my office and spoke to me about the stresses and strains as a parent of a loved one that has type-1 diabetes. For the House's information, type-1 diabetes is a lifelong autoimmune condition that usually occurs in childhood but can be diagnosed at any age. It affects over 122,000 people in Australia alone, and over 1,800 Australians are diagnosed with type-1 diabetes each year. It is one of the most chronic conditions in children, and currently there is no cure.
Mairi Anne asked me to provide a snapshot of what it is like to be a parent of a child with diabetes each day. With Tess, for example, each day starts at 7 am for the Macartney household. When Mairi Anne wakes, her first thoughts are about Tess, who is now 15 years old, having done the test when she was 10. Tess has had diabetes for five years. When Mairi Anne wakes, she is worried. She is worried about whether or not Tess has died overnight from DIBS—which is death-in-bed syndrome—because, with young people with type-1 diabetes, the body's glucose level can drop quite dramatically overnight, mostly without warning. This is a horrifying thought that Mairi Anne lives with each night and has asked me to raise in this place.
Once Tess is up, Mairi Anne has to weigh and measure out her food. Every carbohydrate must be taken into consideration, so that means cereal, bread, milk, fruit—every carbohydrate. On top of that, they have to determine how much insulin Tess needs for each snack, meal and drink. For everything Tess eats, whether she is at home, at school, at a party or at a friend's place, this process has to take place. It is an arduous process and it has certainly taken its toll on Tess. Meanwhile, at school, Tess has no school nurse. No one has been trained in diabetes management to look after Tess. Mairi Anne has arranged a management plan at the school, which is a good school, but there is always the risk as to whether Tess has remembered the amount of insulin to take.
Every day is a challenge for a parent of a child with type-1 diabetes. There is a constant worry about the future and the welfare of the child—and, as I said, there is no cure. To that effect, I welcome the Abbott government's recent funding announcement of $35 million towards finding a cure for this condition. Despite these fears, the Macartney family remain positive on a daily basis and are strong advocates in trying to obtain better outcomes for all families experiencing type-1 diabetes.
As I said, Tess was diagnosed five years ago. Mairi Anne's response to that was to set up a group called My-T1 Connect, and that is connecting families with information and support to explain what happens to children with type-1 diabetes and to provide the support to carers. My-T1 Connect started with four families and has now grown to support 157 families in four years—it is a great group. It is led by Mairi Anne Macartney, Kerrie Trevitt and Shannon Macpherson. They are working on three projects: the first one is to ensure new essential health aids like Omnipod Insulin Therapy are made more accessible to diabetes families; the second project is to ensure a ministerial order is created for diabetes management for schools in Victoria—there is one for anaphylaxis, there needs to be one for diabetes; and the third project is to do a fundraising walk in March 2014.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice were given:
Mr Wyatt: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that diabetes is a serious health concern with an estimated 382 million people worldwide living with diabetes;
(2) recognises that:
(a) 8 per cent of Australians are living with diabetes;
(b) by 2035, 14 per cent of Australians will be living with diabetes; and
(c) incidences of diabetes are three to four times higher in Indigenous communities;
(3) acknowledges that the World Diabetes Congress was:
(a) held in Melbourne, from 2 to 6 December 2013;
(b) attended by 50 international parliamentarians; and
(c) successful in passing the Melbourne Declaration and appointing International Parliamentary Champions for Diabetes;
(4) recognises that the International Parliamentary Champions for Diabetes will:
(a) exchange policy views and practical ideas for prevention and management of diabetes;
(b) encourage all governments to acknowledge that diabetes is a national health priority that requires a comprehensive action plan leading to action; and
(c) aim to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes, stop discrimination towards people with diabetes and prevent development of Type 2 diabetes;
(5) calls on the Government, individuals, families, communities, health care services and industry, to take urgent action to:
(a) ensure prevention of diabetes;
(b) improve early diagnosis of diabetes;
(c) support ongoing research into treatment and medications for diabetes; and
(d) effectively manage and treat diabetes; and
(6) acknowledges the Government’s contribution:
(a) with an expert Advisory Group to consider available evidence and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of the National Diabetes Strategy;
(b) to ongoing research into a cure for Type 1 diabetes with a $35 million contribution into the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s Clinical Research Network; and
(c) in providing an additional $1.4 million for the Diabetes Insulin Pump Programme.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 9:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
National Disability Awards
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:30): Last week in Canberra the National Disability Awards were held to recognise the contributions that people have made to improve the lives of people with disability. There were more than 200 nominations received across nine categories for the awards. I am pleased to acknowledge today that one of my local constituents, John Moxon, was awarded the Lesley Hall Award for Lifetime Achievement in Disability. When I heard that, quite frankly, I thought: 'Of course. I'm surprised that anyone else bothered to nominate or the selection process even had to take place.'
John is one of those people in the community that is known by many for his extraordinary work in the community. I know him along with Margaret Tucker as two balls of energy in the Parramatta seniors. They are always there. They are always running courses. They are getting people involved and they do an extraordinary job. It is not surprising that when John decided to turn his attention to support for people with disability he did so with extraordinary energy and enthusiasm.
He did not just decide that; he was actually thrust into that world when at the age of 31 he was in an accident and became a quadriplegic—a man with a wife and three children—and, unexpectedly, his life took a different turn. Thirty years ago there were far fewer services than there are now. There was no support in the home. There was virtually no access to public transport. Ramps were few and far between.
In some ways, things are a lot better now—although I know a man in his 40s in Lalor Park who, when the state government finally put the lifts in at Seven Hills station, went to the city for the first time in 20 years; it was the first time in 20 years he had actually been able to get in there independently—but you can imagine what they were like 30 years ago.
So John set about advocating for the needs of people with disabilities. He worked tirelessly for the disability allowance. He was president of the Physical Disability Council of New South Wales and he was instrumental in bringing together a wide range of consumer and service provider organisations to develop joint policies for people with disabilities.
This is a man who quite literally over his life has made an extraordinary contribution to improving the lives of others. He is an absolutely obvious choice for anyone who knows him, and I congratulate him on what is a recognition of his work.
Deakin Electorate: East West Link
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (09:33): Today on behalf of the constituents of Deakin, I am very pleased to be able to speak about one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed in Melbourne, that being the East West Link. The East West Link project involves an 18-kilometre link between the Eastern Freeway and the Western Ring Road, including an eight-kilometre section linking the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway with a connection to the Port of Melbourne.
The coalition government will invest $1½ billion in Melbourne's East West Link, and with this investment construction of the East West Link will be underway in 2014. The East West Link is a vital and necessary component of Melbourne's road network and has the potential to provide significant travel, economic, business, employment and community benefits for Victoria and, in particular, residents and businesses in my electorate of Deakin.
The Victorian government has developed a business case that demonstrates the East West Link will deliver $1.40 in benefits for every dollar spent on the project. Infrastructure Australia also supports the East West Link and has identified it as being among projects which 'clearly address a nationally significant issue or problem'.
During the election campaign, countless Deakin residents shared with me their frustration that traffic congestion was an ever-increasing problem in their lives. This worsening situation continues to result in Deakin residents spending more time in traffic on the Eastern Freeway and less time with their families or being productive. This traffic congestion has continued to erode their quality of life and also has major economic impacts that ultimately undermine small business, investment and job creation.
Our government's commitment to provide $1½ billion to the East West Link will therefore give Deakin families more time to spend together instead of being stuck in traffic, and greater efficiency and opportunity for local small businesses. Our $1½ billion investment is proof that we will stop the former Labor government's bickering with the states over road cost splits and will pay the Commonwealth government's fair share.
Unlike the Labor Party, I am fighting for the infrastructure that Deakin residents so desperately need. During the election, the Labor Party opposed this crucial project because they were more interested in inner city Greens votes than helping improve the lives of people in Deakin. Importantly, the East West Link project will not only reduce traffic congestion and travel times but also provide a significant boost to local jobs with the creation of 3,200 jobs during the construction phase of the project. For all of these reasons, I am proud to be working hard to deliver this project to improve quality of life and economic opportunities for all of my constituents in the electorate of Deakin.
Holt Electorate: Hampton Park Shopping Centre
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:36): This Sunday I have the honour to join Luke DeLutis, who is the director of Centre One, and members of the Hampton Park Networking Group to officially open the $3.2 million second stage of the Hampton Park Shopping Centre. This Sunday the Hampton Park community is coming together—and probably some people outside Hampton Park as well—to celebrate this shopping centre redevelopment. The Hampton Park community is a very special community. Without insulting other members that are present here, it is the sort of community that you would really want to represent. It is a unique community. Hampton Park was founded in 1920 and its population has grown to about 23,000. They have a lot of pride. This is an old-style community in a growing part of the world that takes its community very seriously. It is a place where you can drop in and have a cup of tea when you have any time. It has a very strong sense of community.
This redevelopment by Luke DeLutis and Centre One management is generating a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of pride within the community. The Hampton Park Shopping Centre itself was developed in 1994. Before Centre One came to the property development area in 2004, it was a shopping centre that had not reached its full potential, but now with this redevelopment it is moving in the right direction and it is certainly very encouraging. I think Luke DeLutis is a person who believes in social capital and the mixture of business working solidly with the community to achieve an outcome, and he has done a great job in this case.
Centre One work hand in hand with the Hampton Park Networking Group, and where would I start with that? Again, it is a great organisation filled with enthusiastic, motivated community members. It has recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. It is a group that provides an avenue for networking, and it is a professional resource which proactively supports the local business community. The group organises great community events like the Community Kitchen Rules bake-off, the fashion show and the twilight market, and it is also involved in the Day of Nations, which commemorates Australia Day.
Hampton Park is, as I said, rapidly evolving and developing and has many people from different countries now making Australia their home. So I would like to congratulate Luke DeLutis and the Hampton Park Networking Group for this development, for their pride in their community and for wanting to give back to the Hampton Park community. It is going to be a great day this Sunday, and I encourage all the people in Hampton Park and surrounding areas to come to this shopping centre, which represents the best of what Hampton Park has to offer.
Small Business
Mr HOGAN (Page) (09:39): I rise to speak on an issue of great concern to many businesses in my electorate of Page. As many in this chamber may remember, the previous government decided to change the definition of a small business, from 15 full-time equivalent staff to a headcount of 15. While there are those who are unaware—as the Labor Party obviously is—about the way a small business operates, this change in definition has had many serious consequences, particularly in regional areas like Page. It restricts the ability of employers to create part-time jobs; it prevents young mothers from having the ability to job-share or to strike the right work/life balance; and it stops schoolkids from getting real-life work experience while earning a bit of pocket money.
I come from a region where small business makes up 96 per cent of all businesses, many of which are in hospitality. This figure alone will tell you that small businesses are a major employer and economic driver in my community. The problem is that under the old definition, these small businesses could employ staff to suit the needs of their staff members. You could have more than 15 people on your payroll, as long as they were the equivalent of 15 full-time workers. It was a win-win: not only for the employees but also for the business, and it meant that young mothers were able to spend time with their children and also cover for each other when one was sick. But the new definition changes all that. Now, any small businesses that have a headcount of 15 staff or more—and many of those staff might be part-time and might only work a few hours a week—are caught up in all of the red tape that is slowly strangling our economy. They now fall under the legislated obligations that are really designed for much bigger businesses with much deeper pockets. The headcount of 15 is particularly onerous for the hospitality sector, as businesses with only eight full-time equivalents can easily exceed their headcount of 15 due to the part-time nature of the positions.
The Labor Party may talk the talk about the need for good work-life balance—but Julia Gillard and the previous Labor government signed the paper that swept this concept away for anyone working in a small business. It is time for the government to get off the backs of businesses, mothers and schoolkids. We need to bring back the old definition to give business certainty once again, and to allow those who want to work part-time or to job share the opportunity to do so.
Bendigo Electorate: Ulumbarra Theatre
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (09:42): I am excited today to speak on behalf of the constituents in my electorate about our new theatre. On Friday 15 November, the City of Greater Bendigo announced the name of the new Theatre which will be known as the Ulumbarra Theatre. This theatre is a $25.8 million community project currently under construction at the former Bendigo Gaol site. Ulumbarra means 'to gather together' or 'meeting place' in the language of the local Dja Dja Wurrung people. I don't think we could have chosen a better name for this new state-of-the-art theatre. The name was chosen through a formal process which involved the public putting forward their suggestions. Over 250 submissions were received and a large number of them called for this name, an Indigenous name: Ulumbarra. Chairperson of the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Graham Atkinson, said that this was an important and positive step forward and that he looks forward to the relationship with the theatre.
Construction of the theatre is underway, as I mentioned, and I have had the opportunity on several occasions to visit the site for updates on the progress. It is an example of how we can take old, historic infrastructure and turn it into something new and exciting. The work that is being done with the Bendigo Senior Secondary College and the council is bringing together education and the community into a new theatre. When it is completed in 2015, it will feature 1,000 seats, a two-tiered theatre complex with a large stage, and a fly tower. This is something we do not currently have in Bendigo, so it will be wonderful to have this facility. The project also includes entry through the old Marong cell block, which houses the original gallows; again respecting the original and historic structure of the building. This $25.8 million project includes a $12.3 million contribution from the Australian government's Regional Development Australia Fund Round One. RDAF supports infrastructure needs of regional Australia. It is a vital Labor government reform that ensures our regional communities get the capital funding they need for projects that are identified as priorities in local communities.
It may surprise some to find out that I agree with the comments of our new minister for this portfolio, Mr Truss, about this project. He said, 'When completed, this project will provide the wider Bendigo region with a fantastic new asset.' I agree, and perhaps the minister will not miss the opportunity to cut the ribbon at this wonderful project. It is, however, disappointing that the minister has refused to fund all rounds of RDAF, including Round Five. At risk is the Bendigo Botanic Gardens— (Time expired)
Small Business
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (09:45): I rise to speak about small business in Australia. I would like to endorse the member for Page's comments on this subject. We made an election promise that we are open for business. We must follow this up and make small business our No. 1 priority for the Australian economy and for Australian families who are involved in small business. Small business is big business in Australia. We employ the most people—about seven million Australians work in small business. There are many issues and I will be working with the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, who is a very capable minister. I look forward to working closely with Bruce Billson over the next three years on issues to do with the survival of small business in Australia.
No matter where you go in my electorate or anywhere else in Australia, you will find that small business is under the pump. Towns in my electorate like Wondai, Gayndah and Monto and bigger centres like Emerald, Biloela and Gladstone are all feeling the pinch. The things that sometimes make their lives intolerable are many. The taxation system really needs a rev. It needs to be simplified so that everyone can understand the taxation rulings. If you were to ring the Australia Taxation Office on any subject at all and ask questions of three or four different people you will get three or four different answers. That needs to be greatly improved.
Regarding GST on imported goods—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr O'DOWD: Yes, and we will be looking after those things, because you never looked after small business. That is why small business is in—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr O'DOWD: Let's forget about the rabble on the other side and get on with it. GST on imported goods over $1,000—do those opposite understand that? Probably not. Do you understand that overseas companies like Google—
An opposition member: Do you understand it?
Mr O'DOWD: I certainly do. I have been in small business, my friend. I have been in small business for 30 years, have you? Probably not. I do not come from a union background, however, workplace health and safety issues are important, and superannuation is a good thing for our staff. However, I believe the staff should themselves be contributing to superannuation. (Time expired)
Fraser Electorate: Homelessness Lunch
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (09:48): On 26 November 2013 it was my pleasure with Team Leigh volunteers to put on a barbecue at the Canberra Early Morning Centre, as part of Social Inclusion Week. Social Inclusion Week, created by Jonathon Welch, aims to ensure that all Australians feel included and valued. It is about connecting local communities, workmates, family and friends and addressing isolation, loneliness and homelessness.
About 40 people attended the barbecue at the Early Morning Centre, a service hub under the auspices of the Canberra City Uniting Church. The Early Morning Centre provides office facilities such as desks, phones, a computer with internet access, a post office box address and safe mail collection point for mail, and laundry and shower facilities for people in Canberra who are homeless. It provides a free breakfast each day, and support and referral services. The Early Morning Centre is a place of support and community for Canberrans doing it tough, where they can catch up with friends, get help with day-to-day business and enjoy a meal.
Other groups supported the barbecue on the day, including Supportive Tenancy Services, Lifeline Canberra, St Vincent de Paul Street to Home, Partners in Recovery and Red Cross Roadhouse Services. I would like to thank the Early Morning Centre Team: Chris Stokman and John McDonald; board members, Margaret Watt and Terry Birtles, and the Friends of the Early Morning Centre patron Tim Gavel, as well as my friend Bronwyn Fagan. The barbecue was Margaret Watts's idea and I would like to thank her connecting us with the Early Morning Centre in this regard. I want to thank the onion cutters, the salad preparers and the snag turners from Team Leigh—Rob and Robin Eakin, Rod Holesgrove, Meredith Hinchliffe, Adrian Rumore, Joan Costanzo and Matthew Walker. The great Aussie barbecue is a terrific tradition which encapsulates so many great Australian values: mateship, the fair go, egalitarianism, and—with vegetarian and halal sausages!—multiculturalism.
I am deeply concerned about the drop in community spirit that has occurred in Australia over the past few generations. I wrote about this in Disconnected, and it is an issue of great concern to me. It is a pleasure to be able to work with great Canberra community organisations like the Early Morning Centre, which are reaching out to some of the most vulnerable Canberrans, and making sure that they are part of our great city and the community spirit contained within it. Working together we can deal with social isolation, build a stronger community and make sure that Australians are better connected.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (09:51): I have been following with interest the media coverage on the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission meeting that is being held currently in Cairns. Five hundred international delegates have been debating how to manage what they perceive as overfishing of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific. For a long time I have argued against the massive overregulation of the Australian fishing industry, which has killed off many of our local operators. My concern has been absolutely reinforced by the information coming out of this conference. I would like to quote from one of the conference delegates, Emeritus Professor Dr Robert Kearney, who is from the ANU. He has managed tuna research in the Pacific for almost a decade. He said that Australia has tossed away its chance of equal treatment by surrounding countries, by closing the Coral Sea to tuna fishing. He said:
We have gifted our share of the world's biggest fishery to other countries, because it's impossible to be a major player in that industry from our domestic catch unless that resource is available to us.
We decided to save the tuna population of the Coral Sea by shutting down our last surviving tuna fisherman in that area, who took 300 tonnes in his last year. Papua New Guinea took 1.7 million tonnes and New Caledonia took 2.1 million tonnes. So Australia made a great contribution! The professor continued:
Last year PNG caught a million tonnes of tuna in their zone, most of it skipjack. Australia's catch of skipjack tuna in that time was zero—not a single tonne.
He pointed out that yellowfin tuna spawn four times a week and lay a million eggs, while skipjack tuna spawn every night and lay up to 300,000 eggs. His comment was:
You couldn't possibly eliminate them even if you wanted to.
It beggars belief that the former, Labor government, acting under the insidious influence of that gangrenous organisation called the Pew Charitable Trusts, has destroyed family businesses that have been operating sustainably for generations. At the same time, it is open slather for other countries, which are gaining a windfall from the fish that are swimming out of our waters. Their exports fill the vast majority of our canned tuna imports. What is even more appalling is that Cairns's only surviving commercial tuna fish company, Great Barrier Reef Tuna owned by the Lamason family, was not even invited to a single session of this week-long conference. They did not even know that it was taking place. This is typical of fish management: you get the bureaucrats into the room and lock out the fishermen while decisions are made that affect their futures. We must have a seat at the table, demanding our fair share of the tuna take in the Coral Sea fishery. This would be a good basis for a start to re-establishing just one element of a sustainable fishery in Australia. (Time expired)
Oxley Electorate: Community Volunteers
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (09:55): I have the great pleasure today to inform the House that Evie Wolfe turned 90 on Tuesday. Evie is one of those fabulous characters. Not only is she a fantastic supporter of mine, a community supporter and a tireless worker and volunteer, but she is also in the Australian Labor Party, and has been for a very, very long time. Evie is one of those fabulous people you meet in life who is forever smiling, forever wanting to help, forever bringing people together and forever bringing joy to all those around her. It is hard to believe she is 90 because when you see her and when you see her bubbly personality and the brightness she brings into a room, you would think she was a woman of a much younger age—which proves the old adage that age is in your mind only; age is how old you feel, not how many years of the calendar have ticked by.
Evie is not on her own; she is supported by a great bunch of ladies who themselves are not too far off 90. Some are a little bit younger. Ethel Murray is in her late 60s and another fabulous character. You hear about people in the community who do things, who volunteer, who are part of the fabric of the community. Certainly Evie and Ethel are such people, as are their good friends, Glenda, Adele and Patricia; they contribute to a community spirit. They contribute to part of something bigger than they are. It makes me enormously proud to know that they are there on every election date, whether it is state, federal or local; they are tireless. Do not ever dare say it is a hot day when you only have to work half a day, because they will actually scream back at you that they want to work all day. They have got this energy and vibrancy that, if you could bottle and sell it, would be priceless.
They are all well supported by a great bunch of guys in the area too, such as Jim Horsfall and Joe Barrett. Jim is no stranger to a few years. Jim is 86; he has a similar character: bubbling with energy and with love for his community. He volunteers every single hour of his day, every single day; he does not make any distinction between his time and community time. Whether it is with the Australian Labor Party or with the local ambulance committee, or with Scouts or with Neighbourhood Watch, he is volunteering. Whatever it is, these people are always there to lend a hand—people like Joe Barrett, people like Charles Strunk in the Lions, people like Les Bryant, who is a former local councillor in the area who continues to volunteer for the community. And there are younger people like David Tattersall, who just cannot wait to help others and to be part of something that is happening in the community; Barry McIntosh; Ross McKay, who is a teacher, a community worker and also a member of the party. There is one thing that strings them all together: they are all from my home suburb of Inala—and they are all fantastic people. (Time expired)
Aston Electorate
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (09:58): I want to take this opportunity today to outline some of my priorities for my electorate for this term. I would like to briefly cover six in the time I have available. My first priority is to assist in making a safer Knox area and that involves a number of things. There need to be more security cameras in some of our local shopping strips, most particularly the Mountain Gate shopping strip. There needs to be better lighting in some areas, and we need to work closer with the Knox police and the council to ensure that, overall, people can feel safer. I have done a survey that says one in 10 people do not feel safe in the area, so that has to be an absolute priority.
My second priority is to ensure that there are better roads to ease traffic congestion in the outer east. I know the member for Deakin is very aware of this issue as well. The East West Link is critical to this. It will not only ease the Hoddle Street bottleneck at the end of the East Link but also take pressure off the Monash Freeway, which so many of my constituents use. But there are additional roads internally which need to be upgraded as well, and I am planning to work cooperatively with the state government to see if we can make an impact on those.
My third priority is this: our community can be made stronger by supporting some of the key local institutions that provide the glue for our society overall. In particular, I think about the local schools, the larger sporting clubs, the larger churches and institutions such as headspace in my electorate. I will be supporting them very strongly, as much as I possibly can, because I think that when you have strong institutions and strong civil society you have a strong harmonious community in total.
Fourthly—and I have raised this before—I will continue to press and fight to get an honour roll for my electorate which can finally recognise in one place everybody who has made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation from our local community.
The last two priorities are local as well as national. The fifth point is that small business and manufacturers need our support across the country, and they particularly do so in my electorate, which has a high concentration of manufacturers, many of which are doing it very tough. We need to do whatever we can to support them, including lowering taxes, reducing red tape and providing incentives for them.
The last priority is doing everything we can to address cost-of-living pressures for everyday Australians. People are doing it tough out there, and the first and best thing that we can do is to get rid of the carbon tax so that the average family will be $550 better off.
They are my priorities for this term. If I can achieve some of those things then I think we will have made a great contribution to the community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (10:01): I rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013 and associated bills. I am pleased to support these pieces of legislation. Rural research and development has a great impact on the electorate of Parkes and the strong agricultural sector in that area. The innovations that come from our rural research and development corporations have been greatly useful to agriculture in Australia. It is important that we continue to pursue this innovation in order to increase our productivity. The RDC model is one that is envied across the world. The research and development corporations were established in 1989 and, I might add, were supported by my predecessor John Anderson when he was minister for agriculture. We have had gains through increased productivity for the last 24 years.
The federal government will provide around $250 million to research and development corporations in the current financial year. This money goes to the future of our agricultural sector. Starting in the next financial year, the government will allocate an additional $100 million in funding for rural RDCs. This recognises the good and important work that these research corporations undertake and also signals to the industry that this government is serious about supporting agriculture in Australia into the future. I would like to point out that, while not all research projects go on to be widely implemented, it is also vital that the research keep pushing the boundaries. This is where there are gains to be made in productivity.
These bills will allow the RDCs to meet the changing needs of the industries that they are there to support. The RDCs will now be able to undertake marketing activities at the request of the industry and where the industry agrees to raise a marketing levy. There has also been strong evidence that marketing in combination with R&D is particularly beneficial for an industry. Currently nine of the industry-owned RDCs undertake marketing, and this is a common-sense move by the government if an industry supports a marketing levy.
These bills encourage further voluntary private sector investment by RDCs by allowing the government to provide matched funding for voluntary contributions up to set limits. The money invested in R&D is paid back through productivity many times over, and we can see the benefits that R&D has brought to Australian agriculture over the years. At the moment only a few of the RDCs are able to receive government matched funding for voluntary contributions by business.
As one of our key election commitments, these bills will reduce the red tape burden on industry. One of the ways in which this will be done will be by removing product-specific maximum levy rates. This will allow RDCs to react more quickly to emerging trends and issues. There will also be changes to the statutory RDCs to streamline the board selection process and reduce the time cost of filling a vacancy. By reducing these costs of red tape, the RDCs will be able to focus more readily on research.
I would now like to acknowledge some of the innovations that have come about through the rural research and development corporations. The farmers in my electorate benefit directly from the research undertaken by a number of corporations. I might just say from my own background as a farmer, before I came to this place, I and my family have always been involved in undertaking research. In the late seventies when glyphosate was first discovered as an agricultural chemical, in conjunction with Monsanto and the New South Wales department of agriculture, my brothers and I undertook trialling in zero-till methods of farming. We were hampered in the early days because the equipment we were trying to use was not fully adapted to zero till. But those early results and the fact that something was done that had not been done before ultimately led through the work of many, probably mainly Jeff Esdaile from the University of Sydney's Livingston farm, to the development of a farming technique that has now revolutionised agriculture right across Australia and, indeed, the world. At another stage, through the New South Wales department of agriculture I was involved in water use efficiency studies. The experiment on our farm over a 12-month period, conducted from the research station at Tamworth, looked at the ability of the soil to conserve moisture over a longer period of time. So I think it is vital that we keep at the cutting edge.
One of my great frustrations in the six years that I have been here up to this point is that pretty well all the funding that has gone into agriculture for research and other things has come through the prism of climate change and, I think, a belief by the previous government that farmers were poor simple souls that needed the government to come and save them. I can remember numerous occasions when the previous minister for agriculture, the Hon. Tony Burke, would talk about helping farmers adapt to climate change. That statement really did show that former minister's complete lack of understanding of the agricultural sector.
Australian farmers are not following the world on these things, they are actually leading the world. The reality is that, in this last year, there was a wheat crop through eastern Australia that was grown on very, very minimal moisture. It was a crop that 30 years ago would have been a complete failure, but because of cutting-edge technology, agronomy and research, varieties through genetics and a whole range of other things, Australian wheat farmers this year have produced a crop where in previous years it would have been a failure.
This bill will go a long way to enhancing the abilities of Australian farmers in a range of things, whether it is in intensive livestock, poultry, pork production. An RDC has funded, with Alfa Laval, the development of a robotic dairy. Those things will bring efficiencies. So there is a whole range of things that will put Australia at the forefront. It was an election promise by the coalition that we would increase funding and focus on agricultural research. That is what farmers want. Our farmers are not looking to be helped out as if they are struggling third-class citizens. Our farmers are needing that assistance through government to keep them at the forefront of world production, and this bill does that.
I might close by commenting on comments that were made outside this place earlier this week from a well-known agriculturalist, expert in all things agricultural. He is the secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes—apparently, he is an expert. He said that family farms are a thing of the past and that we should corporatise rural Australia. His ignorance on this issue is breathtaking.
There is a place for corporate farming, and indeed right throughout the Parkes electorate we have some large-scale industries, super funds and a whole range of people who have invested in agriculture. I can tell you right here and now that the most efficient, productive and progressive farmers in my electorate are the family farms. The larger family farms not only have a successful business model; they have a model of business and management that is lean, efficient, reactive, agile—those are all the things you need in running a farm.
Quite frankly, the family farms will still be leading the way in Australia long after corporates have come and gone. We have seen people come along who have made money elsewhere and they think: 'If these dopey famers can make money, what could a clever person like me do?' We see them come—I am sure in the seat of Maranoa we see them go, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. The family farms are the ones that are here to stay.
In conclusion, I support this bill. It is a great honour to be in a government that is going to support research into agriculture. As a farmer previously and as a member of parliament that represents a third of the land mass of New South Wales, this is what the people of the bush are looking for. They do not want Big Brother looking over them; they want a hand to be kept at the forefront of agriculture as they have in the past. I recommend this bill to the House.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (10:12): It is a pleasure to be here. I rise to speak on the three bills before the House, the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 and Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013. It was good to listen to the previous speaker, the member for Parkes, talking about agriculture.
The rise of technology and scientific advancement in agriculture is inexorable. It has been the tool that has enabled Australian farmers to compete on a worldwide basis when many times there are impediments in front us—climate and cost of production—that would swamp a lesser country. We have been able to continue stepping up to the plate and, largely, because we have been the best at what we do in the world—if not the best, very close to it.
This bill refers to the 15 research development corporations and it expands their ability to increase opportunities and advancement of the industries they serve. In effect, it allows organisations that have as their primary role the technological advancement of their industries to use the synergies of those relationships to promote and grow the markets for their products.
I initially had some concerns that a move like this would dilute the research development corporations' ability to keep focus on pushing the scientific boundaries. Once the corporations become involved in marketing, I was somewhat concerned that that is where their resources might go; however, I have been advised that the firewalls put in place on the government and grower funds raised through industry levies are such that this type of leakage cannot happen, and in that case I support the legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, I come from a farming background. My biggest interaction with a research development corporation in the past has been with the GRDC, the Grains Research & Development Corporation. At one stage I sat on a GRDC link group, and I spent 10 years on the Minnipa Agricultural Centre committee, now the Eyre Peninsula Agricultural Research Foundation, a grower-driven and grower-influenced organisation that works with the Minnipa Agricultural Centre. I spent the last two years before I entered parliament as the chairman of that organisation.
Minnipa is one of the last significant dryland demonstration farming properties owned by a state government left in Australia. It is a SARDI, South Australian Research and Development Institute, facility which regularly accesses GRDC project grants to fund its research work. The GRDC—like other RDCs—is funded largely by grower levies and, in the case of the GRDC, levies are just on one per cent, 0.99 per cent, of the sale value of the grain, which comes to around about $2.50 per tonne on average, or about $80 million a year. This, in turn, is being matched by the Commonwealth government. The current revenue forecast is based on a wheat production of 25.7 million tonnes and a production of nine million tonnes for 2012-13, with the revenue estimate to be $172.5 million and the operating expenditure to be almost $181 million. As part of the coalition's election pledge to agricultural Australia, we will be raising the government contribution from a dollar-for-dollar to a $1.25-per-dollar contribution. This significant increase in funding will make a real difference in the research community.
I am often asked, 'What can we do with agriculture?' We have farmers under pressure and stress from many sides—skyrocketing input costs; fertiliser, machinery, labour, fuel and chemicals, all added to international competition—and sometimes, it is a little hard for farmers to be positive. But we should be. We should be very positive about the future of agriculture in Australia. The demand for food and fibre is going to explode, and our clean green industry will be at the forefront of supplying this demand—that is, if we give the industry the tools to be so.
The answer is quite simple: what we need to do for our farmers to continue to compete is to continue to raise our productivity. And we may well ask, how? How do we increase productivity? Many farmers ask this question. But history says that we will. And history also says that the answers will come from superior technology. The answers won't come from working harder; they will come from working smarter.
My family took land up at Buckleboo, which is on the northern edge of the cropping regions of the eastern Eyre Peninsula, in 1926, and at its peak the property provided income for the best part of five families. Roughly the same area now would support possibly one-and-a-bit labour units. However, total production has risen by at least a factor of 10 in that time—over the 80 years, almost 90 years. The production coming off that unit of land has risen about tenfold. This is a great outcome for agriculture, and it is an even better story for Australia because it is these efficiencies that underwrite the standard of living in greater Australia—for all Australians.
While farmers work hard, in simple effort terms, these dramatic increases in productivity have not come from working harder, they have come—as I said before—from working smarter—that is, simply, the delivery of new technology and new science.
It is worthwhile reflecting on who the beneficiaries of these dramatic productivity increases are. It is certainly not the country communities, which continue to suffer serious decline. In fact, the success of our productivity increase has worked to undermine the future of our country communities, because Australian farmers will grow more products every year using fewer people. It is certainly not the farmers in particular who are the beneficiaries.
We know the decline in farming numbers continues, so it cannot be the farmers that are really benefiting from this productivity. It seems to me that the biggest winners are the population at large—or even, I could say, our Australian cities—because efficient agriculture drives people to the city seeking employment. It frees them up to produce in other industries for the national benefit. It is the sign of a civilised and advancing community that fewer people are employed providing the basics of life and more people are employed providing the luxuries of life, the services of life. So that productivity increase in rural Australia is what drives the very high standard of living the population of Australia in general enjoys, but these are some of the very things that challenge the liveability of our local communities.
The money earned for Australia by exporting an ever-increasing tonnage of our agricultural bounty in turn flows down through the economy and provides jobs and affluence for millions of Australians. That is why the government support for the research organisations is not support for a single industry but has an enormous multiplier effect that benefits everyone.
While the picture I have painted about regional communities looks a little gloomy for Australia, let me tell you that the alternative—that is, not to have an aggressive, well targeted and well funded research capacity—is to invite disaster. Australian agriculture has always traded on its relative efficiency in the world—and nothing has changed. For agricultural industries to survive and thrive in a high-cost environment, we must be the best, or nearly the best, in the world. The rest of the world is improving rapidly and we will need to keep up an intense effort.
I continue to focus my remarks mainly on the grains industry because, quite simply, that is the industry I know the best. I spoke earlier about the productivity gains on my own property, and it is worth looking at the physical changes on the ground that have enabled this advance. I commenced farming in the seventies. I am thinking of the former minister for trade; yes, I was living in the seventies, and I do remember Skyhooks, but I will not be singing a song about it! We used to crop over one-third of the property and use long-term mechanical fallow to prepare the soil—we thought we were preparing the soil, but we were probably doing it a great amount of damage—and reduce weed intrusion. The advent of widespread fertilisers in the fifties and sixties had greatly boosted production and, by the early seventies, the advent of a wider range of in-crop chemicals enabled us to somewhat bring forward the planting dates and deal with the emerging issue of a broader range of weeds.
Then came perhaps the biggest revolution in broadacre farming—and we may not have realised how great it was at the time: the advent of the glyphosate molecule, commonly referred to as Roundup. It has totally changed farming as we know it all over the world. It has led to zero-till farming systems, which has virtually eliminated the massive soil erosion which had plagued our farming system since the 1930s—Australia was drifting away. I once had it put to me by a significant agriculturalist from Chile, who was visiting Australia at the request of the South Australian No-Till Farmers Association, that the bloke who invented the glyphosate molecule should be given the Nobel Peace Prize because people all over the world now had a far greater source of food as a result of that technical innovation; it is almost beyond description what that single chemical has done to agriculture worldwide.
It is interesting because there are many around who condemn the big chemical companies but, of course, advances at that level cannot be made without the millions of dollars needed for research to push this new technology through. This basic research was not done by Australia and it was not funded by our growers, though under the sophisticated patent systems which we adhere to in Australia we were able to contribute to the development of that chemical and consequentially the next generation of chemicals. Whole new tillage systems were invented around the advent of glyphosate and similar chemicals, which were driven by new science leading to a better understanding of soil borne diseases and the detrimental effects on production. This in turn has led to completely new cropping rotations and the ability to suspend what we in South Australia used to call 'ley farming', or resting, where farmers crop a paddock for one or two years and then leave it out for one or two years, and plant crops much more often; in fact, on a lot of properties we can plant 100 per cent of the property every year.
So in about 25 years we have gone from cropping a third to a half of our properties to actually cropping 100 per cent of our properties. It is like doubling the size of your farm. Much of the research has been funded by the registered development corporations or their predecessors, the taxpayers and of course the growers. But, boy, Australia has reaped the benefits. Complex fertiliser mixes have pushed the envelope further and the advent of precision agriculture, utilising centimetre accurate GPs-guided systems, has pushed it even further. There is no more overlap and wastage, with the ability to now plant between last year's crops, reducing disease, with variable rate sowing, matching fertiliser and chemical usage for soil type and productive capacity. In parallel, while all these advances have accumulated, there has been a continued and dramatic improvement in varieties of crops. A mate once said to me: 'You never want to underestimate the scientific value in that one little seed, the technological power of the advancement of plant breeding.'
Now we are on the cusp of a new revolution, with the tentative rollout in Australia—certainly tentative in South Australia—of genetically modified crops, which hold the promise of providing significant health benefits for all consumers, reducing our reliance on chemicals, improving yields and the ability to better manage crop rotation. It has been a revolution and it will continue.
In the past, every farmer thought we had reached the limit, but we have always found the next step. We can only do that if we continue to push the envelope. I took delivery of a new Massey 542 harvester in about 1979. It had a 21-foot front on it and the whole district visited my paddock to have a look at this monster. 'How would you ever see the ends at the front?' Now, they are more than twice that width, at 45 feet, yet we seem to have no problem and, importantly, there seems to be no limit.
The other half of the equation is marketing, finding our international edge and keeping the downward cost pressure on the path to market and finding the premium for our product and, under this amending legislation, using the research and development corporations and their technical and scientific expertise to help construct the story. These bills will allow that to happen. It will deliver on our election commitments and it will help drive Australian farming to the next level.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (10:28): Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for letting me move towards the summing up. The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 updates and refines the Australian Research and Development Corporation model. In comparing the policy changes, the government met and consulted with stakeholders around Australia and took into account many submissions. Extensive consultation continued in the process leading up to these legislative amendments.
The bill will allow statutory R&D corporations to carry out marketing activities on behalf of their industries, if a marketing levy is in place. R&D corporations which undertake marketing will be able to use their industry expertise to provide cost-effective targeted marketing activities in accordance with industry needs and priorities. No charges to levy rates or new levies are part of these amendments.
The amending legislation aims to encourage private sector investment in rural R&D by extending to all R&D corporations the arrangements for government-matching funding to voluntary contributions for eligible R&D, up to legislated caps.
Statutory funding agreements for statutory R&D corporations are proposed to drive performance improvements and increase transparency in the delivery of R&D services. Funding agreements have been a flexible mechanism for providing government guidance and oversight to industry-owned R&D corporations. These amendments will extend that mechanism to statutory R&D corporations.
Amendments in the bill change the process for selection of statutory R&D corporations' board directors to improve transparency and efficiency. The amendments promote due consideration of diversity in the selection process. These amendments aim to ensure higher quality boards for R&D corporations and reduce the time and delay associated with securing them.
The bill proposes to allow the collection and matching of individual fisheries industry levies subject to a cap based on the gross value of production of that individual fishery. This will allow specific fisheries to propose levies to invest in R&D for their industry and to undertake marketing in a similar way to other rural commodities. The burdensome requirement for ministerial approval of statutory R&D corporations' annual operating plans will be removed and other minor technical matters addressed.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 removes the maximum levy rates for R&D and marketing levies on primary industry products. Similarly, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013 removes the maximum charge rates for R&D and marketing changes that are duties of customs. The numerical maximum levy and charge rates will be removed and the rates will be limited to no more than the levy recommendation by an industry body following consultation with the levy and charge payers. The amendments will not change any levy or charge rates that are in operation at that moment, but they will streamline the process for changing rates in the future. Levies and charges may be increased following a request by industry but will not be allowed to be set above the rate recommended by industry. This will allow industry to manage their collective investments in research and marketing whilst also providing a safeguard for levy payers against arbitrary increases to rates. I commend the bills to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10:33): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Calwell Electorate: Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:34): I had the pleasure of attending a restoring hope mass at the Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School at Roxburgh Park in my electorate on 20 September. It was part of commemorations for Refugee Week. The Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School has the largest intake of students from refugee backgrounds in the electorate and, I think, in the state of Victoria. They are predominantly Chaldean Christians from Iraq. Of the 740 students at the school with 49 different nationalities, 270 of the children have had a refugee experience firsthand. They have come here with their families fleeing war and violence in their original homeland, Iraq.
The school, being a recipient of refugee children, has developed a reputation in our local community for expertise in specifically tailoring its program to meet the settlement needs of refugee children. It was therefore fitting that the restoring-hope mass focused entirely on the need to help others as well as acknowledging the contribution that waves of refugees have made to Australia.
As part of that acknowledgement, I was asked to speak at the conclusion of the mass, at which point I was presented with letters that the children of the Good Samaritan Primary School had prepared. I was also presented with a petition signed by almost 300 students expressing their support for refugees and a booklet filled with their own migration stories. The students also plan on delivering their petition to the Prime Minister.
I will quote an extract from the petition—and I know the children are watching this at school at the moment:
Refugees have enriched out society by bringing with them such wonderful qualities like determination, compassion and empathy for those in similar situations, dignity, self-respect, courage, peace, faith and a strong pride in the country they so desperately want to call home.
We should consider ourselves lucky to be able to assist these people if they are able to contribute these admirable qualities. At our school we use the a positive behaviour system called Stop, Think and Do.' Why don't you the leaders of our country-people that we have elected to represent us, follow our example?
You must stop and put yourselves in the position of theses refuges, show some empathy and compassion. Think about what it would be like to be told you are not welcome. Once you have considered all this, then hopefully you will do the right thing and humane thing and give people the asylum they seek.
Our school community believes that refugees should be allowed to make Australia their home. We do not feel turning them away is the right thing to do. If we had turned refugees away in the past, some of our families would not have had the privilege of calling Australia home.
Roxburgh Park might not be the culturally diverse place that it is now, enriched by our contribution to it. We believe we should be opening our doors and welcoming refugees into our country. Our school prayer calls us to 'open our eyes, hearts and hands' to people who are in need. Aren't the thousands of refugees who seek Australia's help on a daily basis truly in need?
It is the desire of the students at Good Samaritan that we hear their voices, and as such they have written personal testimonies. Grade 5 students prepared this collection of stories. Chelsea Jardas, Miriam Edmonds and Mico Casupanan wrote:
We hope you see the difficulties people face when they leave their country of birth and how grateful they are for a new start in Australia. We hope you tell others about the stories and let the refugees into our country.
The mass that I attended was put together by the teachers at the school, and I congratulate the school and thank it for inviting me along to this very important mass. I thank Damian Fleischmann and the year five teachers Roberta Smarrelli, Sarah Terrill, Melissa Scephis, Julie Carrol and Leah McMahon.
The classes involved were year 5 Red, 5 Gold, 5 Blue and 5 Green, and the presentation was the result of the year 5 students' conducting a faith life inquiry as a part of their studies. The school's inquiry unit focused on the history of migration in Roxburgh Park. Their learning encompassed a visit to the Immigration Museum in Melbourne.
I thank Deputy Principal Helen Smith. As a part of this inquiry, the students at the school produced an artwork that was an award-winning entry in the UNHCR 2013 art competition. It was titled: 'One family torn apart by war is too many.' Congratulations. (Time expired)
GP Superclinics
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10:39): For a long time, workers, nurses, GPs, allied health workers working in the primary care sector have understood the importance of coordinating care. Whether that is done in one facility, in a large family practice or a medical centre, or whether that is done through related sites, it is very important for the overall care of the patient. What I want to talk about is one of the misguided programs of the previous government, and that is the GP superclinic program. Like a lot of things the previous government did, this sounded great when it was first announced by Kevin Rudd in September 2007. But what sounded like a program relating to health was really a building program—and when you look at the results over six years they have been spectacularly poor in the delivery even of the building programs. After six years we have seen four bailouts and we have seen mismanagement, delays and cost blow-outs. For many of the commitments from the 2007 and 2010 elections, there are no buildings at all, just a vacant lot, an empty paddock, whatever. But for some of them where there are buildings there are still no doctors, no nurses. It is a little bit like that Yes Minister episode about the best-functioning hospital in the NHS: unfortunately, it had no doctors and no nurses, but it won an award for being the best run hospital in the NHS.
Of the 64 GP superclinics promised by the Labor Party, it is believed that 35 are open, one has been scrapped and there are four clinics which have required a total of $14.08 million in bailouts. A recent Australian National Audit Office report slammed the rollout of the first 36 GP superclinics promised by Kevin Rudd during his first stint as Prime Minister, with only three of the 36, or 8.3 per cent, opening on time. The fact that they were only able to get three out of 36 of these clinics delivered on time highlights how badly this program was managed.
One of the worst GP superclinics in Australia in terms of delays, mismanagement and bailouts has been the Redcliffe GP superclinic. The Redcliffe superclinic was promised by the Labor Party in October 2007. As at November 2013, more than six years later, incredibly, despite bailouts totalling $13.2 million for this clinic, it is still not operational. At the latest estimates, the department revealed that they are at fit-out stage now. So after six years what we have is a building that is now being fitted out, but has no doctors, no nurses, no nothing.
The ANAO report, which was released in June this year, showed that $650 million had been spent on this program. This included $117 million of primary health care infrastructure grants. There were clinics promised in 2007 which have not opened. I see the member for Bass is here. He might be very interested to know that they promised one at Sorell and later scrapped it. It just did not go ahead; they were unable to make it stack up. The ANAO report also shows that 54.8 per cent of the clinics announced in 2007 were located in marginal electorates and received almost two-thirds of the announced indicative funding. Established risk management measures were not used in managing the troubled Redcliffe GP superclinic rollout and that was also a factor in the failed Sorell GP superclinic.
In my own state of South Australia we have seen a $25 million spent on a GP superclinic at Modbury which only has 2.2 full-time equivalent GPs—and those GPs have recently left. At Noarlunga, $25 million was spent by the Commonwealth government and that clinic only has 2.5 full-time equivalent GPs and one full-time equivalent nurse. Those GPs were sourced from a large GP practice nearby, so there are no extra GPs working in the area. This program has been misconceived and has been disgracefully managed.
Member for Gellibrand
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:44): As all members of parliament know, not one of us got here on our own. Most of us have the honour of serving in this place because we stood on the shoulders of people who believe in our cause and believe in our ability to represent them in the Australian parliament. It is fitting and right, then, that we acknowledge them in this place once we are here.
Because of the enormous support that I received from such a large number of people, within the time permitted I could not mention all of those who played an important part in my being here to give my first speech this week. I take this opportunity today to thank the many people who gave of themselves that I may serve in this place. I would like to begin by thanking those who supported me from the very beginning, before I was even preselected as a candidate for the great Australian Labor Party. In particular, I would like to thank the member for Derrimut in the Victorian state parliament, Mr Telmo Languiller, and the dedicated members of the Ardeer branch of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Languiller and the members of the Ardeer branch share the passion for Australian multiculturalism that I expressed in my first speech and were strong supporters of my candidacy from the very start of my preselection. The suburbs of Sunshine, Sunshine West and Ardeer are extraordinarily diverse areas and Mr Languiller's long experience as an advocate for these communities was invaluable to me during my election campaign. Since the election, Telmo has been an ongoing source of mentorship to me and I thank him for his experienced counsel.
I would also like to thank Sam David and Cesar Piperno for their assistance in this regard. Mr Wayne Mader from the Transport Workers Union was also an early and much appreciated supporter and source of counsel for me. Other representatives of the Victorian parliament, Jill Hennessy, Marsha Thomson, Wade Noonan and Cesar Melham, have also provided valued support to me, both on the campaign trail and as a new and learning MP.
Well over 300 rank-and-file branch members gave their time, energy, expertise and guidance to the federal election campaign in Gellibrand. Every campaign relies on the great all-rounders who help in a myriad of ways in all facets of the campaign. I am particularly thankful in this regard to Pam Mutton, Tom Mutton, Alice Mutton, Bruce Light, Daniel McKinnon, Hakki Sulleyman, Natalie Sulleyman, Shagufta Ali, Kellie Macnaughtan, Alex Drummond, Ken Marriott, Tran Siu and Jackie Ngo. Many branch members gave their time at pre-polling booths, including the particularly generous Wilma Ploza-Green and Mike Perso. Branch members spent many hours with me in the bitter Melbourne cold campaigning at train stations on Labor's commitment to build the Melbourne metro rail tunnel, a policy that would greatly support constituents in Melbourne's west. In particular, Joe Attard, John Stapleton, Louise Persse and Olly Trippodi gave large amounts of their time. Many branch members also took on the big task of being booth captains on election day, including Denis Quigley, Neil Tolliday, Andy Marron, Clovis Mwanba, Carl Marsich, Tony Cassar, Martin Mankowski, Sophia Agneskis, Thomas King, John Cumming, Monika Grierson, Hamdi Koyu, Sam McCrone, Sam Kastelan, Mark Ward, Kaitlin Ferris, Clive Bracey, Sandra Willis, David McKenna, Martin Zacharov, Alana McWhirter and many of the people I have already mentioned today.
Finally, on a personal note, I would like to thank the many other people who have mentored me throughout various stages of my life—no mean feat considering the base material they were working with: Tony Warren, Geoff Booth, Jon Stanhope, Philip Gould, Terry Gygar, Bernard McCabe, Jeff McGregor, Tim Ryan, Neil Carabine, Renae Lattey, Mark Tapley, Peter Barron, Nicola Roxon, Ralph Willis, John Brumby and Steve Bracks. To them I give my recognition and thanks.
I thank these people knowing that there are people who worked for me in many ways that I will never know of. They do the off-the-ball work—those who do not seek praise or thanks but work quietly because they believe in the Labor cause. I particularly thank them for their contributions. To all of these people, I owe you a great debt of gratitude. All of us in the Labor Party do.
McGann, Ms Colleen
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (10:48): I rise to acknowledge the wonderful contribution that Colleen McGann has made to my home state of Tasmania, particularly northern Tasmania. Colleen is one of Tasmania's leading businesswomen and this month marks her retirement from Tasmanian business life. She will retire as managing director of one of Australia's leading health funds, St.LukesHealth, an organisation that she joined as a junior clerk in 1962. St.LukesHealth is a non-profit organisation that has been providing private health insurance to Australians since 1952. Colleen has therefore been a part of St Luke's for 51 years, all but 10 years of the company's existence, which, when you think about it, is a rare deed indeed in an age where many people think about their lives in terms of many different employers and many different careers. I know my children certainly do.
From humble beginnings as a junior clerk, Colleen worked hard and demonstrated what would become a lifelong commitment to learning and continuous improvement. She enrolled in TAFE to study accountancy and business administration at night, while remaining fully employed. Through sheer persistence and hard work she rose through the St.LukesHealth organisational structure to become a section supervisor, then head supervisor, then general manager 33 years after she joined the company. Colleen was appointed managing director of St.LukesHealth in 2000. Colleen has spent over 12 years as managing director, advocating for private health in the community and health policy more generally. Her business skills and professionalism have been further recognised through appointment to a number of national committees. During her career, Colleen has been a shatterer of glass ceilings with monotonous regularity. At a time when men dominated business life, Colleen excelled through professionalism, persistence, and sheer hard work.
There is an old adage, Deputy Speaker, that if you want something done, give the job to a busy person. Colleen personifies that, regularly accepting additional community responsibilities throughout her career. I am not sure where she found the time but she joined the Launceston Rotary Club in 1995, providing wonderful service to Rotary over the last 18 years, including time as president of that Rotary club and as a Rotary district director. In the service club community of Northern Tasmania, Colleen is widely respected as someone who has exhibited a wonderful generosity of spirit and has supported so many worthy causes in our community. During her tenure, St.LukesHealth has grown its membership base to become one of the largest providers of private health insurance in Tasmania—a tribute to Colleen's leadership and skills. In 2002, Colleen was a richly-deserved winner of the Telstra Business Woman of the Year Award. In 2003, she was the first woman elected as vice-president of the Australian Health Insurance Association, the first woman in that role since the association was formed in 1971. She is also chairman of a number of national committees on behalf of the industry, and in those roles has contributed to many changes to health legislation.
I have discussed Colleen's business achievements and her role in organisations like Rotary. But let me dwell briefly on her leadership philosophy and her engagement with her staff over the last 50 years. We often talk about leadership in our community in a variety of ways but, fundamentally, it is an influence relationship between a leader and followers. There are many ways to achieve that influence. Often we portray those ways as either transactional approaches—where you do something because you are being paid for it, or because someone is the boss and has positional authority, or you can rely on personal power approaches—through example, and sheer hard work. Real leaders, in my view, rely on their personal power and their individualised consideration of those that they work with, and Colleen is in that group. She is a transformational leader who has made a major difference in the lives of so many of her staff. She has been incredibly supportive—I have seen it firsthand—when they are ill or when some other disaster strikes. She is a wonderful employer in that way. In that sense, St.LukesHealth has been to Colleen not only her family and her business but also something she has invested her heart and soul in over the past 50 years.
I thank Colleen McGann for a lifetime of dedicated service to the needs of others. I know many people around the country will join me in wishing Colleen well as she now devotes her considerable talents and energies to serving our community in other ways.
Manea, Dr Ern
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:53): Today I wish to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, Dr Ern Manea, who sadly passed away in Bunbury on 16 October this year at the age of 86. Last year, I was privileged to speak at the book launch of The Story of a Remarkable Life by Baden Pratt, concerning Dr Manea's life, his loving partnership with his wife Beulah, also known as Snookie, and the contribution they both made to Bunbury and to the South-West region. I first met Dr Manea some 47 years ago when he delivered me; I was the first baby in the then new Bunbury Regional Hospital. Dr Manea delivered more than 3,580 babies during his almost 60 years of practice and I had the feeling he remembered each one of us. He was the family doctor to generations of people in the South-West community, including my mother, Lorraine Parke, and my good friend, Mary Lee. Just to name a few of his achievements, Dr Manea was the local mayor, the inaugural chairman and director of the then South West Development Authority and, as was noted in the book, he oversaw 'millions of dollars of investment in the health, social, heritage, business, sporting and industrial fabric of the greater Bunbury area that saw the city become the fastest growing municipality in Australia'.
Dr Manea was chairman of the Edith Cowan University Bunbury campus, the president of the South Bunbury Football Club and the Bunbury Trotting Club, a member of the Western Australian Planning Commission and president of the Australian Harness Racing Council. But, not content with a presence in community, regional, state and national life in Australia, Dr Manea went on to become the world president of the International Trotting Association. He also fostered the important relationship between the City of Bunbury and the sister city of Setagaya in Japan.
Dr Manea was on a first-name basis with prime ministers, governors-general, governors and premiers, and was pursued at various times by both major political parties to consider a career in state and federal politics. The mind boggles to think of what might have happened had he done so. Certainly, Dr Manea was the go-to person for premiers needing to regale visiting heads of state, whether it was entertaining the President of Ethiopia Haile Selassie at Gloucester Park, receiving the Duke of Edinburgh to open the Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre or taking the President of Malaysia crabbing. He and Snookie were parents to an Aboriginal boy, Syd Jackson, who went on to become a football legend, and they championed the cause of young Aboriginal people as they championed regional development and education services. Manea Senior College in Bunbury is a testament to that.
As Dr Manea told the South Western Times in 1972:
I hate to wait for things to happen. I like to cause things to happen.
Ern's wife, Beulah 'Snookie' Manea, also made things happen, as shown in her work to preserve the Bunbury timber jetty and to establish the Bunbury Regional Art Galleries and the Bunbury Meals on Wheels—to name just a few. Both Dr and Mrs Manea received medals for the Order of Australia and were each made an Honorary Freeman of the City of Bunbury and a Paul Harris Fellow—the highest honour bestowed by Rotary for exceptional service.
Dr and Snookie Manea have had a profound impact in so many ways. There is simply not enough time to say it all, but I will say this: in many respects I am what I am today because of Dr Manea. For starters, he did not drop me at birth! Throughout my life, whenever I had a concern, needed advice on a matter or had a crucial decision to make, I turned to the person who greeted me into this world, Dr Manea. Whether as a teenager growing up in Donnybrook, a community legal centre lawyer in Bunbury, a human rights lawyer working in war zones with the United Nations or now as the federal member for Fremantle, I had available to me a mentor who took an interest in my life.
I was working in the Middle East with the UN when I turned 40 and got a call from Dr Manea, who was turning 80 that same year. Until just a few months ago Dr Manea would call my office in Fremantle to offer some advice or tell me to stand strong on a particular issue. Dr Manea, whenever he had the chance, would also encourage young people to pursue their aspirations. As mayor, attending school graduations he used to quote Oscar Hammerstein:
You who have dreams, if you act they will come true.
Dr Manea was also particularly concerned at the loneliness suffered by many elderly people and was still busy organising community meetings and activities for seniors until not long before his death. I take this opportunity to give thanks for all Dr Manea did and said which gave courage, confidence and hope to me and to so many others. I was grateful to be able to attend his funeral in Bunbury and to pass on my regards to Beulah, to his sons, Mark, Dennis and Sydney, and to other family members and friends, of whom Dr Manea had so many.
The service, which had been planned by Dr Manea himself, ended with Louis Armstrong's 'What a Wonderful World'. That really did sum up this exceptional man's outlook and his generous approach to everyone around him. Truly this was a remarkable life, and I am thankful to have been a small part of it.
Drummoyne Swimming Centre
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (10:58): Because I grew up in Reid, my weekends in summer were spent at swimming club. Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings were spent at the St Patrick's College swimming pool—on Saturday for the St Pat's swimming club and on Sunday for the Catholic swimming club. Whilst we would train every morning, weekends were for competing. The competition was fierce. Why was it fierce? It was fierce because the brilliant people in charge decided to make ice creams the prize. The races were handicapped to ensure titanic struggles; however, I cannot help but think there were some rorting involved when a child had not won for a while.
While I am no longer involved in these clubs, it was a real trip down memory lane when I received an email last week from the president of the Drummoyne Swimming Club, Duncan Lyon, inviting me to attend the George Wheaton Family Tribute Day at the Drummoyne pool. The Drummoyne Swimming Centre is an amazing community asset. It was built in 1904 at a cost of £3,000. It sits on the water overlooking the Iron Cove Bridge. I would hate to think what it is worth today. The pool has been home to many Olympic champions. Harry Gallagher's squad of the 1950s called the pool home. In fact, he took his squad from here to the 1956 Olympics, and two of his stars won Olympic gold, both in the 100 metres freestyle—no, there was not a dead heat. Drummoyne Pool was home to the male champion, Jon Henriks, and a swimmer I think not too many people have heard of, the legendary Dawn Fraser! In 1959 one of the best coaches our country has ever seen moved to the pool: swimming royalty Forbes Carlile. At the time his squad dominated world swimming. Three world records have been set at this pool, the last of these by another relative unknown, Shane Gould, who bettered the world mark for the 200 metres freestyle. A year later she shocked the world, wining three gold medals in the 1972 Olympics at the age of 15. Shane was coached by Forbes Carlile.
George Wheaton was a proud member of the Drummoyne Swimming Club from its earliest days. Whilst George Wheaton is not as famous as the people I have mentioned, he was no slouch. George was selected to represent Australia at the Empire Games, but never got the chance, due to the outbreak of World War I. George had four sons: Noel, Neville, George Jnr and Lindsay. All swam at the Drummoyne pool in the Drummoyne Swimming Club with their father. In 1937, at the age of 55, George Wheaton competed in a 220-yard race at the regular Thursday night swim meet. The local newspaper sums up what happened next:
'Swam to his death in race'
His love of participating in competitive swimming in spite of his advanced years caused George Wheaton, about 55, of the Lenore Street, Five Dock, to suddenly fall dead in view of many bathers last night after he had raced over 220 yards at Drummoyne Baths.
The victim was unplaced in the last race.
That was a bit harsh, wasn't it!
He contested a heat of the championship arranged by Drummoyne Amateur Swimming Club. After successfully negotiating the distance Wheaton left the water and conversed with some friends while the next heat was about to be run.
Without warning he fell and struck his head on the concrete. Friends found that life was extinct when they picked him up.
Wheaton had been told by his associates that he was getting rather old to compete in races, but he was too fond of his hobby to give it up.
Central Ambulance took the body to Balmain Hospital, where formal pronouncement of death was made.
His obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald on the same day read:
Mr George Wheaton, a prominent swimming official, collapsed and died shortly after a 220-yard race. Mr Wheaton, who was 53 years of age, was for several years delegate to the New South Wales Amateur Swimming Association, honorary secretary of the Western Districts Swimming, and treasurer of Drummoyne club.
I would like to thank all at the club for not only involving me in the day last Saturday—and the fact that they honour the heritage of their wonderful club and the foundation members involved, like George Wheaton—but also for the hours of work they put in for the benefit of local families in Reid. To the president, Duncan Lyon, and to all on his committee, as well as to the volunteers who offer their time, I say thank you and well done. To the four generations of Wheatons, especially Grandma June, I congratulate you for continuing to support the club of which George Wheaton was a founding pillar.
I am sure George is looking down and has a very large smile on his face, and deservedly so. Lastly, well done to the winner, Adam Brooks, and well done to Kate Coyne, last year's winner, who presented the trophy. To come back to where I began, the Brooks and the Coyne families are from Strathfield. Growing up, I attended the swimming club and competed against Adam's and Kate's parents, aunties and uncles. Although this world gets quicker by the year, I like to think the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Scullin Electorate: Community Hub
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:03): A few weeks ago I attended the launch of the Community Hub, Thomastown West Primary School, and was privileged to be able to say a few words to mark the occasion. The Community Hub was created through a partnership between Thomastown West Primary School, Whittlesea Community Connections, Preston Reservoir Adult Community Education and the Smith Family.
The atmosphere on what was unfortunately a rather drizzly spring day in Melbourne was nonetheless electric. I could tell that those present were genuinely excited to be part of an initiative designed to support and strengthen the children, young people and families who are either attending or connected to the primary school community. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all of those involved, but most particularly Mr Leon Bell, the school principal.
Schools are of course an essential part of communities. They are where children and parents meet, make friends and put down roots. Schools are where teachers and parents identify children's different learning types, so it is crucial that schools have the resources to cater to individual students and their needs, particularly those with disabilities or from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most of the students who attend Thomastown West Primary School are from backgrounds that give rise to significant challenges in their schooling, particularly a low level of English spoken at home. Also, many come from asylum seeker backgrounds. It is a school that deserves more, and it is wonderful to see this community hub as an expression of community sentiment in that regard. Unfortunately, despite recent recantations, it is all too obvious that this government is breaking faith with parents and their children when it comes to school funding. I and parents at Thomastown West Primary School know that there is no 'one size fits all', that different schools have different needs. I think today of all those students starting at Thomastown West Primary School.
Labor's Better Schools Plan was all about more one-on-one individual attention for every student so that they can reach their full potential regardless of the circumstances in which they start their schooling and education. There are so many examples about what is at stake for schools in Scullin: extra teachers; extra learning and support staff such as educational psychologists, speech pathologists and social workers; literacy and numeracy specialists to work with students who need extra help; more-effective high-quality vocational education and training opportunities that lead to the real qualifications employers want; specialist programs within schools in sport, music and the arts; classroom modifications and new assistive technology for students with disabilities; extra equipment such as iPads and class sets of textbooks to take the financial burden off parents; and, critically at schools liked Thomastown West, breakfast clubs and homework clubs with tutors.
Labor's Better Schools Plan meant children struggling with literacy and numeracy would not fall behind. Thomastown West Primary School is just one of many schools across the electorate that will now lose out. Under Labor's plan, Thomastown West Primary School stood to gain $1.59 million more public funding in 2019 than what it receives this year. Overall, schools in Scullin stood to receive approximately $117 million in additional funding that year, an increase of over 50 per cent.
Labor has a strong track record of investing in schools education, of which I am proud. Schools in Scullin benefited enormously from the Building the Education Revolution program, having suffered significant neglect from the coalition government that preceded Labor and outright hostility from the Kennett Victorian government. Schools gratefully received this investment from Labor. For Thomastown West Primary School this meant $2.5 million for a new library and $150,000 for assistance with ICT procurement—once again, something members opposite were against. The very idea of a school missing out on a library because of the commitment to neoliberalism by members opposite is unconscionable. While Labor has a track record of investment in schools and education, the Liberal Party have abandoned the field. The coalition's approach to education could be described as history repeating itself—the first time it was tragedy, but now it is farce. We have seen this with the tragedy of the coalition not supporting a library at the Thomastown West Primary School. We have seen this with the farce of the coalition walking away from Labor's Better Schools Plan, walking away from the unity ticket. Federal Labor set a bold target for Australia to be in the top five in the world in reading, maths and science by 2025. Recent PISA scores underline the fact that we need more individual support if we are to reach this goal and enable all of our children to get those high-skill high-wage jobs of the future. Kids in Scullin deserve better than this government. These schools and all schools deserve Labor's Better Schools Plan and needs based funding.
Devondale Murray Goulburn
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:08): In The Financial Review today Boral chief executive Mike Kane said running a profitable manufacturing business in Australia is extremely difficult because of high costs. He said: 'Unaffordable housing, the slow rate of land release, high energy costs, supply uncertainty, wage inflation, industrial relations problems, carbon tax, a high and volatile Australian dollar, high transport costs and low-population levels are making it difficult to deliver economies of scale.' You could not say anything worse; that is a shocking indictment of Australia.
In the process of all of that, one group, dairy farmers, just get up every morning and do their job. Sixty years ago a group of dairy farmers got together and decided they needed more dollars for the milk they were supplying. So they formed a cooperative and that cooperative became Murray-Goulburn. Its flagship label is Devondale and it is a national leader in Australia's consumer market. It is Australia's largest dairy food company now. Devondale Murray-Goulburn is committed to being the first choice in dairy foods in Australia and internationally. It contributes an estimated $6 billion to the Australian economy annually, and the co-op is 100 per cent controlled by Australian dairy farmers. There are 2,413 dairy farmer shareholders and more than 2,000 employees across south-east Australia. Many of those are in my electorate; otherwise I would not be raising the matter today.
The domestic revenue is $1.25 billion for 2012-13. The percentage of Australian milk volume produced is approximately 33 per cent or 3.2 billion litres—that is a lot of udders. Containers exported the equivalent of more than 21,000 21-foot containers. MG was the largest dairy exporter from Australia in 2012-13.
MG is building on its great heritage, leading transformational change and driving performance with its dairy farmers, shareholders, consumers, customers and employees. There is an issue about at the moment—that is, there are moves afoot in the dairy industry for takeovers. We are getting some criticism. Others are supporting the takeover of Warrnambool Cheese & Butter.
It is a very difficult issue when members of parliament stand here and tell business how to run their show at any time. There will always be different views in my electorate, and I will be meeting a group of farmers tomorrow to talk about that they feel that Murray Goulburn is at a disadvantage compared to Saputo with regard to this takeover.
I know this is of interest to only a small group of people, if you take the nation as a whole. We would like to be the leaders in dairy production for the world. We would like to do better than New Zealand. I think the inspiration of my local farmers is that they would like to see us gathering together all the players in the dairy industry so we become one force. My thoughts are that we should be getting closer to New Zealand so we become one package out of this part of the world, addressing our products and activities to the world.
We are the cleanest. We are the greenest. Around the world our products get a premium price because of the known value of the Australian product—that it is clean, green and safe. They can give it to their babies; they can give it to their children if it has that Australian label on it. Wherever we go in the world, that is the truth.
We have an amazing product which we should—and I know the member for Gippsland thinks exactly the same as me on this—be protecting at all times. I do not mean protecting our product through protectionism; I mean protecting the value of our brand. My meeting with those dairy farmers tomorrow will be a good day. There will be a bit of rough and tumble. They think that the ACCC is not enabling Murray Goulburn to have the same sort of opportunity as other bidders to gain control of Warrnambool Cheese & Butter.
I am a person who likes to stand aside and let business get on with business with minimum interference. If the government is interrupting the process somehow, that is something we should probably be looking at into the future; it is not for this very moment. I hope that Murray Goulburn will go on and on and, when we are all gone from this place, I know one thing will still be happening: there will still be a Murray Goulburn.
Baha'i Faith
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:13): On 15 November I attended the official opening of the Baha'i centre of learning in Adelaide. For Adelaide's Baha'i community the opening was the culmination of a vision which began many years ago, followed by a lot of hard work in beautifully restoring a historic but neglected building and turning it into a welcoming learning, meeting and conference centre. It was not my first invitation to the Baha'i community, as I had previously attended several other Baha'i events in Adelaide.
From my interaction with Baha'is, I particularly noted their respect for all other religions and faiths. I also noted their firm belief in equality for all and their pursuit of world peace, the rule of law and the unity of religions. The Baha'i faith is built on the belief that 'the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens'. Yet in Iran where the Baha'i faith was founded and where Baha'is make up the largest non-Muslim religious minority, the Baha'i people are being imprisoned, persecuted and discriminated against for staying true to their faith.
The persecution of non-Muslims in Iran is not limited to the followers of the Baha'i faith, with a UN report earlier this year stating that in recent times over 300 Christians had been arrested and that some are still in detention. The same report states that around 110 Baha'is, including two women nursing babies, are currently detained and another 133 are awaiting summonses to serve their sentences. It also reported that seven Baha'i leaders have received prison sentences of 20 years.
The world Baha'i community claim that since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 more than 200 Baha'is have been executed or killed, hundreds have been imprisoned and tens of thousands have been deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses and educational opportunities. Holy places, shrines, cemeteries and personal possessions of Baha'is have been confiscated, vandalised or destroyed. Recently I met with members of Adelaide's Baha'i community, who added their voice to the reports coming out of Iran about the persecution of Baha'i followers. They were understandably very concerned about the treatment and fate of their families and friends in Iran.
In September this year my colleague the member for Wills attended a rally in Melbourne at the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture's Foundation House in Brunswick urging the release of 45-year-old Rozita Vasseghi who, I understand, in 2010 was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I understand that the rally, which was organised by Rozita's sister Rosa, was attended by a large crowd including many civic and religious leaders. On 24 August Baha'i Ataollah Rezvani was found shot dead in his car in the Iranian city of Bandar Abbas in what was described as a religiously motivated murder. Prior to his death, Mr Rezvani had been the target of threats and intimidation.
While I acknowledge that Australia has limited ability to influence affairs in another country, I nevertheless believe that where we are aware of injustice and suffering in the world we have an obligation to intervene. Not by the use of force but by diplomacy and through bodies such as the United Nations. I was heartened to hear that last month, through international negotiations, progress was made in limiting Iran's nuclear program for the next six months in return for the easing of some sanctions. Having constructive discussions with Iran on its nuclear program hopefully opens the way for discussions on other matters, including the protection of human rights for all law-abiding Iranian people, regardless of their faith. I bring this matter to the attention of the parliament and particularly to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for her consideration as to how Australia may be able to assist followers of minority faiths in Iran from being discriminated against and persecuted as the Baha'i people currently are.
Alpine Grazing
Wild Dogs
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (11:18): I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on two natural resource management issues which are of great significance to the people of Gippsland, and also to people in the neighbouring seat of McMillan. Both of these issues are primarily a state government responsibility, but there are some federal implications. I am referring to the matters of alpine grazing and aerial baiting plans for wild dogs. Both of these issues are subject to EPBC Act considerations. And I do stress, in making my comments today, it is not my intention to pre-empt any decision the Minister for the Environment may make; I am confident he will discharge his duties in a responsible manner and he does not need my advice. But I would also like to stress the importance of these two issues to the people of Gippsland.
By way of background, I have spoken in the past about the issue of alpine grazing and the former Labor government's treatment of mountain cattlemen—which I think was, quite frankly, appalling—but today I would like to update the House on the current proposals being put forward by the Victorian government. It submitted an application to the minister on 25 November for a scientific study to occur on the reintroduction of cattle to a small section of the Alpine National Park—that is, the Wonnangatta Valley, which has been continuously grazed since the 1860s. The research trial is an investigation into the use of strategic grazing of domestic livestock to manage fuel loads. Before members opposite object it must be noted that, here in the Canberra region, the Labor government uses strategic grazing of cattle to reduce the impact of fires in the ACT. The trial in Victoria is intended to compare the effectiveness and the impacts, both positive and negative, of livestock grazing and of the current planned burning practices of bushfire fuel management.
The Victorian government has a clear mandate for this trial; it took the proposal for the trial to the people of Victoria at the last election, and the trial has strong support in the community. I do not wish to suggest for a second that it has unanimous support; it is a controversial issue which has received both positive and negative feedback. But the government won a clear mandate and has support for this trial, particularly amongst communities which are adversely affected by the impact of bushfires. I refer specifically to the communities around the seats of Indi, McMillan and Gippsland.
The proposal for the high country grazing to return has won strong support from the Victorian Farmers Federation. I refer to the Omeo branch president, mountain cattleman Simon Turner, who in a statement said:
The former Labor Government's refusal to revive alpine grazing has damaged the alps. Not only has it left the area bushfire prone, it has risked wiping out a 200-year-old tradition.
Since alpine grazing came to an end, fuel loads have reached dangerous levels and valleys have been choked with weeds.
Let's hope there is still a future for both the heritage of our cattlemen and the sustainable management of the land.
Simon Turner makes a very good point about the sustainable management of the land. His point reflects directly on the impact that severe bushfires have had not just on property and human life but also on the biodiversity of the Australian Alps. There is a direct link between alpine grazing and wild dog management, which also has significant impacts on the biodiversity of the natural environment.
The Victorian government will submit an application to the minister on the aerial baiting of wild dogs sometime this month. The Victorian government released its new wild dog action plan in the past week. The plan involves the use of trapping, baiting and shooting and a flexible resource model using full-time staff, contractors and casuals to best reflect the nature of the problem. The key thing concerning the Victorian government is aerial baiting. The previous government did not support an application for aerial baiting in Victoria even though aerial baiting of wild dogs is occurring just across the border in New South Wales. We had the ridiculous situation where the environment department called on the Victorian government to undertake a multimillion dollar study to justify aerial baiting in Victoria even though permission had been given for aerial baiting in New South Wales.
I believe that the Victorian government has acted responsibly in the matter of wild dogs. They have used the full range of options at their disposal to try to control the wild dog menace, which is significant—it has obvious economic impacts on our agricultural production and on native fauna. It also has social impacts: the deterioration of the mental health of farmers who have to deal with the problem on a daily or nightly basis is very significant. I support the Victorian government in its endeavours to introduce aerial baiting in the future in Victoria as one of a suite of measures to help control the wild dog menace in Victoria.
Bruce Electorate: 40th Anniversary of Emerson School
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:23): I rise today to speak about a school in my electorate, the Emerson School, and to congratulate the school and the school community on the occasion of its 40th anniversary, which was celebrated in the last few weeks. I had the honour of attending celebrations surrounding this significant anniversary at the beginning of November. Emerson school is a specialist school which provides a dynamic range of programs for primary and secondary students with mild intellectual processing disabilities. It has a reputation for providing quality services to a region which includes Rowville in the north, Hampton Park in the south, Mulgrave and Springvale in the west and out to Pakenham in the east.
Since opening its doors in 1973, Emerson School has grown to be one of the largest specialist schools in Victoria. Over 2,170 students have participated in Emerson's program since its beginning. The school itself has steadily grown to an enrolment of around 400 students and a staff of 98. Situated in the metropolitan area of Dandenong, the Emerson School is the largest combined specialist primary and secondary school in Victoria. The school provides a wide range of educational, therapeutic and developmental programs to students who have been identified as having mild intellectual processing disabilities.
The school has an ethos which emphasises the development of skills and talents in every student. The parents and staff at Emerson are very passionate about giving families a range of choices when choosing a school which best fits the educational needs of a student. The school aims to 'unlock the potential within'.
One of the main features of the school is the way in which students find their feet and develop an ambition to be successful. It is wonderful to note that students who formerly had a low self-image are now senior student leaders at the school. The school works on building skills and achievements. In the last year, 30 students completed school based traineeships. They were based at a local not-for-profit company in Dandenong South, Water2All, which distributes water and clothing to charities. Emerson students completed a certificate III in warehousing and logistics. This recognised qualification counts towards further TAFE studies. Eight other students completed certificate II in first aid.
There are a number of other programs which Emerson is rightly proud of. They run a volunteer program with the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. Approximately 12 students participate weekly in this program, undertaking painting and maintenance work. A group of students also participate in a fortnightly program with the City of Greater Dandenong, performing maintenance work in the council's parks and recreational areas as part of the school's horticultural program.
There was an article recently in one of the local papers, the Dandenong Journal, which I think encapsulates the story of Emerson and the fact that so many should be so proud of what it has done over the years. The article said:
The Dandenong school celebrated its 40th anniversary with a dinner dance and fun fair on 1 and 2 November.
Junior and senior campus principal Dianne Wright said the school for pupils with mild intellectual disabilities was education department bureaucrat Les Emerson's vision.
"Every kid deserves an opportunity," she said.
Ms Wright said the concept was to support kids languishing at the bottom of their class.
"It was an opportunity for those kids to shine," she said.
"Our school is the difference between being a recluse from society and actually giving back to society.
"Our aim is for our students to be gainfully employed."
The school started with 144 pupils and now has more than 410.
"I've been there since 1985," Ms Wright said.
"I was only going to stay for a few years. I chose it because my mum lived nearby at the time."
She planned to stay until her toddler son started primary school.
"Now Bradley's 31 and I'm still here," she said.
"I really believe that what we do here makes a difference to the lives of the kids we have."
Ms Wright said the school had a fantastic weekend of celebrations.
There is no doubt that Emerson provides opportunities for kids that need help to realise what they can be. The school's longstanding principal John Mooney, who I am very pleased to know and call a friend, is someone who has enormous respect within the local community. John and his staff are dynamic, committed and working together to build these children up to be all that they can be. I have met some of their students and there is no doubt you can see the change. When they talk about what they have learnt and how they have been able to work within that structure to realise achievements, it is uplifting and inspiring. I know John has worked hard within the local community, with businesses and community groups, to build links to ensure that that school is part of the community. They should all be very proud of the work that they have done. They should all be very proud of the school that they have. It is a great pleasure to have been there for their celebrations and to say, 'Well done.'
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:29